Tuesday, December 28, 2010

And still you believe in them? a comment from Che Det's dot com

*** The Fate of an Honest Intellectual

by: Noam Chomsky

Excerpted from Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002, pp. 244-248


I'll tell you another, last case—and there are many others like this. Here's a story which is really tragic. How many of you know about Joan Peters, the book by Joan Peters? There was this best-seller a few years ago [in 1984], it went through about ten printings, by a woman named Joan Peters—or at least, signed by Joan Peters—called From Time Immemorial. It was a big scholarly-looking book with lots of footnotes, which purported to show that the Palestinians were all recent immigrants [i.e. to the Jewish-settled areas of the former Palestine, during the British mandate years of 1920 to 1948]. And it was very popular—it got literally hundreds of rave reviews, and no negative reviews: the Washington Post, the New York Times, everybody was just raving about it. Here was this book which proved that there were really no Palestinians! Of course, the implicit message was, if Israel kicks them all out there's no moral issue, because they're just recent immigrants who came in because the Jews had built up the country. And there was all kinds of demographic analysis in it, and a big professor of demography at the University of Chicago [Philip M. Hauser] authenticated it. That was the big intellectual hit for that year: Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, everybody was talking about it as the greatest thing since chocolate cake.Well, one graduate student at Princeton, a guy named Norman Finkelstein, started reading through the book. He was interested in the history of Zionism, and as he read the book he was kind of surprised by some of the things it said. He's a very careful student, and he started checking the references—and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax, it was completely faked: probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency or something like that. Well, Finkelstein wrote up a short paper of just preliminary findings, it was about twenty-five pages or so, and he sent it around to I think thirty people who were interested in the topic, scholars in the field and so on, saying: "Here's what I've found in this book, do you think it's worth pursuing?"
Well, he got back one answer, from me. I told him, yeah, I think it's an interesting topic, but I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you. So I said: if you want to do it, go ahead, but be aware of what you're getting into. It's an important issue, it makes a big difference whether you eliminate the moral basis for driving out a population—it's preparing the basis for some real horrors—so a lot of people's lives could be at stake. But your life is at stake too, I told him, because if you pursue this, your career is going to be ruined.

Well, he didn't believe me. We became very close friends after this, I didn't know him before. He went ahead and wrote up an article, and he started submitting it to journals. Nothing: they didn't even bother responding. I finally managed to place a piece of it in In These Times, a tiny left-wing journal published in Illinois, where some of you may have seen it. Otherwise nothing, no response. Meanwhile his professors—this is Princeton University, supposed to be a serious place—stopped talking to him: they wouldn't make appointments with him, they wouldn't read his papers, he basically had to quit the program.

By this time, he was getting kind of desperate, and he asked me what to do. I gave him what I thought was good advice, but what turned out to be bad advice: I suggested that he shift over to a different department, where I knew some people and figured he'd at least be treated decently. That turned out to be wrong. He switched over, and when he got to the point of writing his thesis he literally could not get the faculty to read it, he couldn't get them to come to his thesis defense. Finally, out of embarrassment, they granted him a Ph.D.—he's very smart, incidentally—but they will not even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University. I mean, sometimes you have students for whom it's hard to write good letters of recommendation, because you really didn't think they were very good—but you can write something, there are ways of doing these things. This guy was good, but he literally cannot get a letter.

He's now living in a little apartment somewhere in New York City, and he's a part-time social worker working with teenage drop-outs. Very promising scholar—if he'd done what he was told, he would have gone on and right now he'd be a professor somewhere at some big university. Instead he's working part-time with disturbed teenaged kids for a couple thousand dollars a year. That's a lot better than a death squad, it's true—it's a whole lot better than a death squad. But those are the techniques of control that are around.

But let me just go on with the Joan Peters story. Finkelstein's very persistent: he took a summer off and sat in the New York Public Library, where he went through every single reference in the book—and he found a record of fraud that you cannot believe. Well, the New York intellectual community is a pretty small place, and pretty soon everybody knew about this, everybody knew the book was a fraud and it was going to be exposed sooner or later. The one journal that was smart enough to react intelligently was the New York Review of Books—they knew that the thing was a sham, but the editor didn't want to offend his friends, so he just didn't run a review at all. That was the one journal that didn't run a review.

Meanwhile, Finkelstein was being called in by big professors in the field who were telling him, "Look, call off your crusade; you drop this and we'll take care of you, we'll make sure you get a job," all this kind of stuff. But he kept doing it—he kept on and on. Every time there was a favorable review, he'd write a letter to the editor which wouldn't get printed; he was doing whatever he could do. We approached the publishers and asked them if they were going to respond to any of this, and they said no—and they were right. Why should they respond? They had the whole system buttoned up, there was never going to be a critical word about this in the United States. But then they made a technical error: they allowed the book to appear in England, where you can't control the intellectual community quite as easily.

Well, as soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein's work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East—and they were ready. As soon as the book appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein's work without any acknowledgment, I should say—but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was "ludicrous," or "preposterous."

Well, people here read British reviews—if you're in the American intellectual community, you read the Times Literary Supplement and the London Review, so it began to get a little embarrassing. You started getting back-tracking: people started saying, "Well, look, I didn't really say the book was good, I just said it's an interesting topic," things like that. At that point, the New York Review swung into action, and they did what they always do in these circumstances. See, there's like a routine that you go through—if a book gets blown out of the water in England in places people here will see, or if a book gets praised in England, you have to react. And if it's a book on Israel, there's a standard way of doing it: you get an Israeli scholar to review it. That's called covering your ass—because whatever an Israeli scholar says, you're pretty safe: no one can accuse the journal of anti-Semitism, none of the usual stuff works.

So after the Peters book got blown out of the water in England, the New York Review assigned it to a good person actually, in fact Israel's leading specialist on Palestinian nationalism [Yehoshua Porath], someone who knows a lot about the subject. And he wrote a review, which they then didn't publish—it went on for almost a year without the thing being published; nobody knows exactly what was going on, but you can guess that there must have been a lot of pressure not to publish it. Eventually it was even written up in the New York Times that this review wasn't getting published, so finally some version of it did appear. It was critical, it said the book is nonsense and so on, but it cut corners, the guy didn't say what he knew.

Actually, the Israeli reviews in general were extremely critical: the reaction of the Israeli press was that they hoped the book would not be widely read, because ultimately it would be harmful to the Jews—sooner or later it would get exposed, and then it would just look like a fraud and a hoax, and it would reflect badly on Israel. They underestimated the American intellectual community, I should say.

Anyhow, by that point the American intellectual community realized that the Peters book was an embarrassment, and it sort of disappeared—nobody talks about it anymore. I mean, you still find it at newsstands in the airport and so on, but the best and the brightest know that they are not supposed to talk about it anymore: because it was exposed and they were exposed.

Well, the point is, what happened to Finkelstein is the kind of thing that can happen when you're an honest critic—and we could go on and on with other cases like that. [Editors' Note: Finkelstein has since published several books with independent presses.]

Still, in the universities or in any other institution, you can often find some dissidents hanging around in the woodwork—and they can survive in one fashion or another, particularly if they get community support. But if they become too disruptive or too obstreperous—or you know, too effective—they're likely to be kicked out. The standard thing, though, is that they won't make it within the institutions in the first place, particularly if they were that way when they were young—they'll simply be weeded out somewhere along the line. So in most cases, the people who make it through the institutions and are able to remain in them have already internalized the right kinds of beliefs: it's not a problem for them to be obedient, they already are obedient, that's how they got there. And that's pretty much how the ideological control system perpetuates itself in the schools—that's the basic story of how it operates, I think.

So You believe in "THEM", eh?

The following is a complete copy, comments included from

Former DAP Petaling Jaya Utara MP Dr Kua Kia Soong recently launched his book “Questioning Arms Spending in Malaysia”. The book launch, was made in London on 14 December in Melur Restaurant, Edgware Road.

Isn’t this an act of treachery?

Dr Kua, who is currently the SUARAM Executive Director and DAP member definitely has other means to question the arms spending of the Federal Government. There is this forum called Dewan Rakyat where no less 78 Pakatan Rakyat MPs (which his party DAP is part of the tri-party-marriage-of-(in)convenience-between-backstabbing-strange-bedfellows) and Dewan Negara where they have 8 Senators.

If questions are being posted in the august house, then the Prime Minister, Minister of Defense and Minister of Finance are compelled to answer. Of course there would be a debate. Dr Kua could get his DAP colleagues to attack what or which ever spending with facts and demand answers.

Writing a book and launching it abroad serves a different connotation entirely. It is a one sided attack. It is suspiciously with an intent of malice, especially taking the details or presumed details of Malaysian militarium in the open and on an international platform. This is an act of anarchy. No difference from when PKR Lembah Pantai Nurul Izzah lied in Jakarta about the Scorpene Perdana Class subs inability to be operational.

Dr Kua is the sort of scholar who choses to be deliberate inaccuracies, unsubstantiated facts, lop sided foreign mission/agency reports and is very unfair and bordering an ill intent with his presentation and analysis. Last June blogger Jebat Must Die did an in depth analysis and counter Dr Kua’s lame and politically-skewed book with facts on 13 May 1969. A leading Military Analyst Dzirhan Mahadzir took the first salvo against Dr Kua on this.

Excerpts from Dzrihan’s analysis on Dr Kua’s new attempt to skew facts:

Now I have no problem with defence spending being scrutinized or criticised, but my problem is when the matter becomes politicised, distorted and used by people to fulfill their own agendas or when people doing such don’t know what they are talking about or when they deliberately used racial issues which is the entire problem with Dr. Kua’s book.

The first flaw in the book is the manner of citations used, there’s an inconsistancy in Dr. Kua’s approach, he gives name credits to articles by writers like my old boss Bob Karniol, who recruited me into Janes and a few others but the numerous times he cites articles in Janes and Defence Review Asia (mostly mine) and the mainstream media articles in NST, Star and others, he can’t see fit to name the authors and title of the articles. Now the reason for this is important as knowing who wrote the article, so we can judge the accuracy and quality as not all writers are the same, and the context of the quotation based on the article title. The other problem is just on a personal basis as Dr Kua quotes my JDW focus on the Malaysian Armed Forces several times but it doesn’t rate a mention in the selected articles list in the bibliography, wherelse articles he quotes once or twice does which again falls foul of normal conventions in such, like I said I get no credit .

The other flaw in the book is that in all honest sense, the supposedly well researched book has no original information, as pointed by both Marhalim and Azra, all the book does is quote materials published publicly, even then Dr. Kua doesn’t bother finding out additional information or digging out new information. The so called expose is a lie as nothing contained in the book hasn’t been talked about. Furthermore if it really is to be an expose, why did Dr. Kua not find people willing to talk, even anonymously about the alledged wrongdoings etc. If the publishers and writer had been honest enough to state that the book simply was based on open sources and a compilation, I’d have been less critical but as it is…..


(Note: Dzirhan teaches at the Armed Forces College and writes for Jane’s Defense Weekly)

The authorities should really look into this attempt of Dr Kua to undermine the strategic and operational interest of the Malaysian Armed Forces. This sort of person is definitely belong to be labeled as ‘Disobedient and Ungrateful Malaysian’.


Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

•{Videos} Teo Soh Lung at the launch of “Beyond the Blue Gate: Recollectio…
Ads by Google

5 Unbeatable Stock Picks
Discover How To Make Profits That Could Last A Lifetime!

Published in: Disobedient and ungrateful Malaysianson December 27, 2010 at 11:03 Comments (11)

LikeBe the first to like this post.The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/kua-kia-soong-a-traitor/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 Comments Leave a comment
On December 27, 2010 at 13:47 Wake UP! said:
This treacherous act confirms that they have inside information about the Malaysian militarium.

Where did this author got it from? He should be picked up and questioned by the police or the military.

On December 27, 2010 at 16:12 Tweets that mention Penipuan DAP berterusan; slps mengemukakan fakta salah 13Mei, Kua menipu lg. Baca big dog - -- Topsy.com said:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Didi Mazril. Didi Mazril said: RT @tunfaisal: Penipuan DAP berterusan; slps mengemukakan fakta salah 13Mei, Kua menipu lg. Baca big dog – http://bit.ly/eVSYgy [...]

On December 27, 2010 at 16:24 Average Joe said:
Menteri Amaran tunggu apa lagi?!

On December 27, 2010 at 16:27 Jitu said:
“Dr Kua is the sort of scholar who choses to be deliberate inaccuracies, unsubstantiated facts, lop sided foreign mission/agency reports ..”

Can some one tell me what scholar is he actually? Is he a medical doctor or a PhD? If PhD, what field?

He can’t be worth his salt if he deliberately writes inaccuracies, slants the facts, does not substantiate his claims. No medical doctor would do that. No genuine PhD holder does that. Usually they are trained or well versed in “hypothesis, theories and facts” before they are awarded with PhDs.

Has anybody checked whether he genuinely has a PhD? Don’t trust DAP fellows. Remember “Sir Wong”, a DAP information chief or something in Sabah who even doctored photographs purportedly showing he was receiving a knighthood from the Queen of England? terrible fellows these DAP characters. Ultra kiasu, even pure, outright cheats and liars, plain and simple.

This Kua fellow certainly wants the sensation aspect of the matter, to sell his books, like the tabloids of England which sell gossips, rumours and half truths to increase their circulation. Anybody verified the claim that his May 13 book was a “best seller”? What standard used to determine that? What number of copies exactly sold?

All told, this is one hell of a doctor – if he is really a doctor, whatever the discipline may be. Agree with BD that he could have got political mileage if he had launched his book in Malaysia or raised the issue in Parliament. But a bloody gullible fellow. More money launching the book in London, higher purchasing power there, the populace is more aroused by sensationalised info. To hell with propriety, etiquette and a sense of obligation to Malaysia, he’d say. To hell with him we should say.

On December 27, 2010 at 19:13 KaboingToing said:
Agree that we should know the authencity of his Doctorate. Also need to understand how can an institution keep giving recognition to someone whom academia knows to lie and make bad reference.

On December 27, 2010 at 20:53 Zen said:
He was arrested twice — under the Internal Security Act (ISA) during Operation Lalang in 1987, and the second time for participating in the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor in 1996. That tells the kind of fellow he is.

He was only a one-term DAP MP in the 1990s. That tells how popular (or unpopular) he was.

On December 27, 2010 at 17:10 VARUNA said:

On December 27, 2010 at 18:08 Quad Erat Demonstratum said:

Obviously Kua Kia Soong is up to something evil again. Despite JMD nailed this DAP-commie after his “13 May” book, he dares to go one step higher: from being anti-Malay to anti-Malaysia.

From the excerpts, it shows that Kua’s book is to tell the world that Malaysian Government are idiots in procuring these weapons.

Varuna is bloody right! Kua Kia Soong is a MODERN DAY MIN YUEN!

I hope someone do a police report against this bastard & the authorities act accordingly! Means that if his writings is seditious and/or undermine national security, nail this bastard!

Please la. Don’t short-change us for pacifying-the-Chinese-politics!

On December 27, 2010 at 22:15 marzuki ahmad said:
apa nak tunggu lagi Menteri KDN dah terhantuk baru tengadah ke….lemah betul kerajaan kita sekarang ni patut kita ganti yang berani !!!


On December 28, 2010 at 05:08 Jimmie said:
Such an asshole like to should be dumped into the sea. He shall no longer be a Malaysian. BIG TRAITOR

On December 28, 2010 at 23:07 VARUNA said:
Ni yang sedih ni. Baru kita meratapi pemergian Allahyarham Jeneral Tun Ibrahim Ismail – tak kering lagi pusara Allahyarham.

Kita mungkin tak ada bangkangan kalau benda ni diketengahkan dalam bentuk akademik dan berlandaskan fakta. Ini tidak, terang-terang buku ini ditulis berasaskan fitnah, spekulasi, maklumat yang direka-reka, selective and mostly out of context kemudiannya diputar-belitkan dan nampaknya bermotif jahat.

Jelas sekali golongan Min Yuen moden ni dah makin berani dan biadap. Mereka bermain api dengan mengipas sentimen serta amarah rakyat jelata untuk bersikap anti establishment.

Kua ni juga tanpa segan silu membela Chin Peng sebagai pejuang negara tapi conveniently tergamak melupakan ratusan malah mungkin ribuan mangsa yang jadi korban pengkhianat komunis itu. Berikut apa yg pernah dia tulis tentang Chin Peng:

In recent years, there has been plenty of breast beating among the Umnoputras, with flag waving, keris kissing and singing of patriotic songs. But how many of these Umnoputras can proudly stand up and say
that they patriotically took part in the liberation war against the British colonialists and the Japanese fascists?

Hardly any!

Yet, how many Malayan patriots have given their lives in these two campaigns? Have they ever been honoured by the country they defended? They were honoured by the Allies for their valour during the anti-Japanese resistance after the Second World War in London. Have
our historians exposed those who collaborated with the Japanese fascists during the Second World War – the “quislings who sold out the patriot game?”

At least one man, Chin Peng can claim that he achieved this and today he merely wants the opportunity to visit his homeland that he defended
against British colonialism and Japanese fascism but he is unable to do this!

Ini pula pandangannya tentang lafaz taat setia kepada SPB Yang Dipertuan Agong dan menyanyi lagu NEGARAKU di Kemunting;

At Kamunting, the so-called “rehabilitation” programme included a weekly “assembly” during which we were supposed to sing the national anthem as if we were back at school and to make a pledge (Ikrar) of
allegiance to the king, country and the Rukunegara.

Many of us “hardcore” did not participate in this vacuous token of “patriotism”. It brought home the scathing quote by Samuel Johnson that,
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Sampai bila agaknya kita nak biarkan orang sebegini?

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Sunday, December 26, 2010 ciplak direct siap dgn komen dari rbf online

Nik Aziz telah tahu apa nasib yang bakal menimpa Pas dalam prk Dun Tenang, semalam sekali lagi dia mempersoalkan sistem pilihan raya yang dijalankan di negara ini dan berkata seperti di bawah.

"Saya tidak percaya kepada pilihan raya, nama saja pilihan raya tetapi penuh dengan penipuan. "Kita boleh lihat apa yang berlaku di Galas, duit berguni-guni dibawa untuk membeli undi bagi memastikan calon Barisan Nasional (BN) menang,"
Sumber : Utusan Online

Dia sudah tahu apa nasibnya dalam prk itu, itu pasallah cepat-cepat dia buat persepsi begitu dan mengharapkan persepsi itu berlanjutan sehingga keputusan pilihanraya diumumkan. Sesudah keputusan diumumkan dia atau beruk-beruk peliharaannya akan buat kenyataan lagi "kito tahu doh kita akan kalah, kerana spr menipu". Maka terselamatlah dia dan Pas dari menjadi sebab kekalahan dan kesalahan diletakkan ke atas bahu spr. Rakyat buta hati pula akan percaya bulat-bulat kepada cakap Nik Aziz.

Lihat fakta di bawah ini kemudian sila fikirkan benar atau tidak sistem pilihanraya kita penuh dengan penipuan.

Dalam pru 2008 buat pertama kalinya dalam sejarah BN hilang majoriti 2/3 dalam Dewan Rakyat.

Kenapa BN hilang 2/3 ?

Kerana Pembangkang menang dan rampas banyak kerusi BN.

Kenapa pembangkang menang ?

Kerana rakyat yang pilih mereka dalam p/raya.

Kalau sistem p/raya kita penuh dengan penipuan macamana mereka boleh menang banyak kerusi sehingga BN hilang 2/3 ?

Itu satu bab, sekarang kita masuk bab ke dua pula.

Selain kehilangan 2/3 di Dewan Rakyat, BN juga mencipta satu lagi sejarah, iaitu tewas di empat negeri yang diperintah mereka. Kedah, P.Pinang, Perak dan Selangor.

Kalau sistem pilihanraya kita penuh dengan penipuan bagaimana mereka boleh bentuk kerajaan di empat negeri berkenaan ?

Itu bab kedua, sekarang mari kita masuk bab ke tiga pula.

Daripada 26.8.08 hingga 4.11.10 SPR telah mengendalikan 13 pilihanraya kecil.

1) P.Pauh - 26.8.08-PKR menang.

2) K.Trengganu - 17.1.09-PAS menang

3) B.Gantang - 7.4.09-PAS menang

4) B.Selambau - 7.4.09-PKR menang

5) Batang Ai - 7.4.09-BN menang

6) Penanti - 31.5.09-PKR menang

7) M.Urai - 14.7.09-PAS menang

8) Pmtg Pasir - 25.8.09-PAS menang

9) Bgn Pinang - 11.10.09-BN menang

10) Hulu Selangor - 25.4.10-BN menang

11) Sibu - 16.5.10-DAP menang

12) Galas - 4.11.10-BN menang

13) Batu Sapi - 4.11.10 - BN menang

Daripada 13 prk, Pas dan rakan-rakan seliwatnya telah menang sebanyak 8 kerusi, manakala BN hanya memenangi 5 kerusi.

Kalau sistem p/raya kita penuh dengan penipuan jangan haraplah kau orang nak menang 8 kali, semua BN sapu bersihlah beb.

Itu bab ketiga, sekarang kita masuk bab keempat dan yang terakhir.

Mung dengar molek aku ghoyat ko mu ni wahai pok nik ngok ngek.

Kalau sistem pilihanraya kita penuh dengan penipuan jangan haraplah Pas dapat menang dalam pilihanraya di Kelantan selama 5 kali p/raya berturut-turut (1990, 1995, 1999, 2004 dan 2008).

Tak rasalah mung nak duduk kerusi MB sampai hari ini kalau SPR menipu. Menantu dan anak betino mu pun tak rasa mewahlah hidup mereka hari ini.

Kawan-kawan sekalian itulah sikap Pas. Mereka kata mereka memperjuangkan islam, tapi perangai mengalahkan iblis. Mereka tidak dapat menerima ketetapan Qada dan Qadar.

Kalah sahaja pilihanraya , ada sahaja onar yang mereka buat. Waktu mereka menang bukan main ek lagi. Macam-macam kenyataan sombong yang mereka keluarkan.

Rakan-rakan sekalian, saya kalau bercakap saya tidak akan bercakap kosong, saya selalu kemukakan bukti bersama bagi menangkis dakwaan-dakwaan jahat mereka.

Dibawah ini adalah bukti-buktinya.

Kenyataan Nik Aziz sewaktu hendak menghadapi prk Permatang Pasir

Entah apalah rahsia yang tersimpan dalam lipatan perbendaharaan ilmu Allah yang Maha Luas itu sehingga berlaku 8 pilihan raya kecil sejak Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-12, tiada siapa jua yang mampu menekanya. Apa yang hanya boleh kita baca dari 7 pilihan raya kecil yang telah berlalu, parti yang bertanding dari Pakatan Rakyat (PR) telah menang sebanyak 6 kali berturut-turut. BN cuma menang 1 kali; itupun di Batang Ai,Serawak. Ini realiti dan ini kenyataan.
Sumber: Blog Nik Aziz

Selepas kemenangan Pas dan PKR dalam prk Bukit Gantang dan Bukit Selambau

Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat menyifatkan kemenangan Pas dan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) dalam dua pilihan raya kecil semalam meletakkan pakatan pembangkang cuma 'selangkah' lagi untuk menerajui negara.
Sumber: Utusan Online

Selepas kemenangan DAP dalam prk Sibu

Tuan Guru Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat menyifatkan calon Pakatan Rakyat yang menang dalam pilihan raya kecil Parlimen Sibu semalam sebagai isyarat jelas rakyat telah menolak Umno dan Barisan Nasional (BN).
Sumber : Harakah...kah...kah...kah daily

Kenyataan Nik Aziz selepas Pas kalah di Galas

"Saya rasa ragu, kerananya keesokan hari nak mengundi tu, malam tu saya tengok di televisyen seorang menteri cakap dah BN akan menang banyak. Dia tahu mari mana BN akan menang banyak, sedangkan esok baru nak mengundi. Makna ada benda dia buat. Bagaimana dia boleh berkata demikian, jika perancangan tidak dibuat. Itu yang meragukan"
Sumber : Gelombang Merah

Anda telah baca apa yang kemukakan, sekarang masa untuk berfikir dan nilai yang mana lebih teruk antara perangai Pas dengan perangai iblis ?

Posted by ruang bicara faisal at 11:54 AM 4 comments:
Anonymous said...
Rakyat malaysia yg berakal dpt menilai kata2 merapu nik aziz ni melainkan pemuja2 dia yg sanggup minum air rebusan selipar wali...
Ni la manusia yg benar2 wat kerosakan pada umat islam..

December 26, 2010 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...
hidup kalo dah dok main taik ... taik laa jadi nya .... ???

December 26, 2010 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...
nak cerita pasai nik ajis ni sampai kiamat pun tak habih..

December 26, 2010 2:45 PM
CucuAtok said...
Salam.... biasalah tu kalu dah menang semuanya bersih dan menjalankan tugas tapi kalu kalah berbagai 'fatwa' yang di keluarkan untuk menutup malu.

Tambah lagi pula kat johor yang terkenal dengan kubu kuat BN tetapi awas! silap langkah tegai maruah.