Reproduced below are Dear Leader’s press statements of 4 & 5 July 2012 in full and word for word.
By Lim Guan Eng
I wish to condemn in the strongest possible terms the attempted character assassination not only against me but also against my wife and children by BN and MCA. Clearly BN will practice the dirtiest politics to try to topple democratically elected leaders, even attacking innocent members of the family. Before this my 15 year old son, who is still at minor, was accused of sexually molesting his female classmate by Umno Online, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaludin and pro-Umno blogs.
A picture of the alleged female victim of my son was also posted on the internet. The alleged female victim was identified Anya Corke, a chess champion from Hong Kong, who had never met me or my son. No apology was forthcoming from Umno Online or Khairy Jamaludin and neither was there any action taken by both the police and Malaysian Communications & Multimedia Commision on the various police reports filed by me. In contrast, immediate action is taken when such smear campaign is directed against BN leaders.
Having failed to destroy my son and affect me, the BN media machinery has now undertaken another smear campaign through MCA against my wife. Melaka MCA Chair Datuk Gan Tian Loo has abused the Melaka State Assembly privilege and immunity by making false allegations of a private moral scandal against me and my wife in the Melaka State Assembly. I want Gan to repeat his allegations outside so that my wife and me can file a legal suit against him for defamation for making such “kurang ajar” or uncouth remarks.
If Gan fails to do so, then he has shown himself to be a coward who is unfit to be a leader, an EXCO member and a wakil rakyat. Worse, he will show himself unworthy to be a husband and father of his children who can make false allegations against another to destroy not just his political career but also the family’s happiness. What kind of leader is Gan when he is willing to be used as a lackey of Umno to play such gutter politics?
Repeat Outside So That My Wife And I Can Prove In Court That Lim Guan Eng Is Not Chua Soi Lek. (bold emphasis by Lim Guan Eng)
DAP had never indulged in gutter politics. DAP had never abused and misused parliamentary privilege and proceedings to attack MCA President Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek private moral scandal in Parliament when he was caught in a pornographic video tape having an extra-marital affair with another woman. Instead most of the attacks were made by MCA leaders during the MCA party crisis. However I regret that despite the restraint shown by DAP towards Chua, MCA is shamelessly willing to stoop so low.
I would not ask Chua Soi Lek to direct Gan to repeat his false allegations against me outside the House. After all Chua has no moral authority to direct his subordinate in view of Chua’s previous moral scandal. Instead Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak should direct MCA to repeat their false allegations outside the Melaka State Assembly that my wife assaulted my former staff because of her close or secret relationship with me.
I have no close or secret relationship with my former staff. My wife had never assaulted me or anyone in her life.
Let my wife and me prove in court that MCA lied and ask MCA to expose their attempted character assassination as well as the source of this false information. Let MCA repeat their allegations publicly so that my wife and me can prove in court that, “Lim Guan Eng is not Chua Soi Lek!”.
By Lim Guan Eng
Chua Soi Lek and MCA should prove his courage and political morals by repeating the lies that I had a secret relationship with my former staff and that my wife had assaulted her so that both of us can sue him and MCA in court for defamation to clear our name for the sake of our children.
I am surprised that MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has likened his resignation from all political posts, after being caught in a pornographic video-tape with a woman who is not his wife, as an act of “courage and political moral to be responsible and bear the consequences.” In that respect I agree with Chua that “Lim Guan Eng is not Chua Soi Lek” as I do not possess Chua’s type of courage.
Clearly my detention without trial under the Internal Security Act in 1987 and my imprisonment in Kajang Prison in 1998 for defending an underaged rape victim can not compare with Chua’s courage. Does admitting to a private moral scandal absolve Chua from blame and transform him into a hero of courage? I can only describe that Chua’s courage as the courage of being thick-skinned.
I do not understand Chua’s challenge to me to admit to a secret relationship with a former staff when there is none nor why my wife has to admit to assaulting her when my wife has never assaulted any one in her life. BN cyber-troopers hiding behind anonymous shadows spread vicious lies against my family and me on a daily basis. I have chosen to ignore them or else I have no time to perform my duties as Penang Chief Minister.
However when these lies are hurled against me by BN and MCA leaders directly, I have a duty and right to protect my family. Chua must prove where is the basis of such wild allegations against my family and me. Is my refusal to reply to such lies in the internet months ago or my determination to sue those who spread such lies, a sign of guilt?
If so, Chua and MCA should prove his courage and political morals by repeating the lies that I had a secret relationship with my former staff and that my wife had assaulted her so that both of us can sue him and MCA in court for defamation to clear our name for the sake of our children. Clearly Chua supports the cowardly action taken by MCA Melaka Chair Datuk Gan Tian Loo to abuse parliamentary privilege and hide behind that parliamentary immunity in the Melaka State Assembly to hurl such despicable lies against my wife.
Unlike MCA, I have never abused parliamentary privilege to attack Chua personally in Parliament for his private moral scandal. Chua knows that it is MCA leaders led by former MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat that attacked him so ferociously until he was sacked from MCA during the MCA party crisis.
My children deserves protection from such lies. They have been affected when Umno Online, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and BN cyber-troopers spread lies that my 15 year son sexually molested his female classmate. Even though my son has been proven innocent, is it morally right and fair that my young son has to endure that type of trauma just so that some immoral BN and Umno politicians can sabotage my political career. They are also affected now by the latest false allegations.
If MCA and Chua have proof, state it publicly so that my wife and I can sue in court and prove our innocence not so much for ourselves but for our children. There is no need to continue this sordid saga of gutter politics by BN and MCA. The public is sick and tired of such smear campaign and character assassination and want to return to discussion of public issues that matters to ordinary Malaysians, particularly how to combat corruption and improve their economic livelihood.
The question then to Chua is, “Do you have the courage to repeat these false allegations publicly so we can let the courts decide?”
Click on headlines to connect back to original articles
The movie starts in Hokkien and the dialogue is a rojak — Mandarin predominantly with the Cantonese and Hainanese dialects thrown in, Malay, Tamil, Manglish and English spoken like Aishwarya Rai (by the Indian character played by Miss Universe Malaysia 2010 Nadine Ann Thomas).
Briefly as this should not be a spoiler giving away the gags:
Nasi Lemak trades on allusions to cultural stereotypes and local political episodes for a nudge-nudge wink-wink humour as well as takes a few sly pokes at politicians and the political parties.
It also references the Chinese condition in the country; Chinese audiences will be able to connect with the Malaysian slice-of-life scenes.
I found it entertaining. There are some silly segments (lawak bodoh) and some annoying over-the-top performance by the supporting cast members but Namewee is a natural on the set who acquits himself well in his acting debut.
Nasi Lemak’s ability to laugh at itself (or rather Namewee to laugh at his own headline-grabbing predicaments) and not taking things too seriously makes the movie a fun romp.
The musical/song-and-dance sequences — including a rap which sounds like Negarakuku but made to lyrics different from his 2007 national anthem YouTube — were the best parts.
Is Nasi Lemak offensive? Hardly. Although it takes the mickey out of a few cherished and sacred cows.
Does it merit a ban? Roll my eyes.
So why the fuss? It’s the same situation as with people who rowdily burn books they’ve not personally read.
(In mStar, ”Nasi Lemak 2.0′ Tiada Niat Mengkritik — Namewee‘)
“Perasaan saya pun sama macam awak semua. Saya pun marah dan berasa sangat tak puas hati suatu ketika dulu ketika Namewee melakukan perkara yg sekarang ni membuat dia dibenci org. Selepas dia meminta maaf kepada kerajaan dan rakyat Malaysia semua, saya berpeluang untuk berjumpa dgn beliau menerusi kawan saya Pete Teo, bila berbual dgn beliau saya dapati yg dia betul-betul mahu memperbetulkan kesalahannya dulu, saya nampak sesalan dalam dirinya dan dalam usia darah mudanya dia telah melakukan sesuatu yg mengikut perasaan dan sekarang menerima padahnya.
“Pada pendapat saya kalau betul dia sayang Malaysia dan dia nak buat satu projek yg mempromosi perpaduan antara rakyat kita, saya bersetuju untuk berkerjasama. Pada pendapat saya, kalau seseorang tu mahu mengambil tanggungjawab atas kesilapannya dulu dan memperbetulkannya kita patut sokong. Kita semua tahu Tuhan pun maha pengampun dan penyayang, dan saya adalah seseorang yg tak percaya dengan dendam dan kebencian, kerana benda itu selalunya membawa padah.”
Read the rest in Afdlin’s Facebook (16 Sept 2011)
9 Aug 2011
The bishop said: “To add to the false argument for exclusivity the one about Christian use of ‘Allah’ as liable to cause confusion among Muslims would be akin to gilding the lily and then shredding it.”
(i) In simpler English, he means something like: (1) It is false to argue that only Muslims alone use the term ‘Allah’. (2) It is also false to argue that when Christians use ‘Allah’, Muslims can become confused. Adding argument (2) on top of argument (1) is like trying to make both these false arguments sound more believable, but it doesn’t work.
<Quote> He said that wisdom would impel the government to withdraw the text as unsuitable for the edification of our youth, indeed for the building of 1Malaysia. <Unquote>
(ii) In simpler English: Bishop Paul is saying that if the government were a bit smarter, it would withdraw Interlok as the novel is not suitable to be read by students and will not help them become better persons morally.
(2) Archbishop Murphy Pakiam
Some Christians and Pakatan supporters were unhappy with Archbishop Murphy Pakiam when he appeared to be too friendly with Najib Razak as well as somewhat blasé over a faux pas committed by the Prime Minister’s office. A prime ministerial aide, Hardev Kaur, had upset Christians with her request regarding protocol arrangements during the PM’s visit last year. She had apparently asked organizers of the Christmas tea (a big and important function where Najib Razak was guest of honour) to keep any crucifixes/Christian symbols discreet or out of sight.
Indeed Bishop Paul is an activist and a politically inclined one. Almost as soon as he became president of the Catholic Bishops Conference this year, he started speaking his mind forthrightly to the alternative media. He was introduced to Malaysiakini readers by one of its regular writers Terence Netto in an article headlined ‘Bishop Paul’s tenure likely to be activist’.
(4) Views on Anwar’s speech
Excerpt from Malaysiakini:
<Quote>”When you purport to sponsor and lead discussions promoting interfaith harmony and understanding and then arraign leaders who deliver learned speeches aimed at aiding that process, what is the message you are sending?” [Bishop Paul] queried rhetorically.
“He declined to be specific but it was clear the Catholic prelate was referring to the decision by the de facto religious minister, Jamil Khir Baharom, to investigate Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim for a speech on religion and pluralism at the London School of Economics in March last year.
“A friend afforded me the privilege of reading that speech and I could not help but be struck by the way it echoed the sentiments advanced in documents emanating from the Vatican and from recent popes, especially Pope Benedict, concerning inter-religious dialogue,” offered Bishop Paul.
“The essence of those documents can be encapsulated in the phrase ‘Unity in plurality’ and the essence of that now arraigned speech is the same: how to see infinity in a grain and divinity in wild flowers.
“Bishop Paul said he felt the speech was the pronouncement of a person whose stands firmly on the foundations of his religion ‘but his eyes survey the world’.”
“Incidentally, that is a good standpoint from which to initiate interfaith harmony and understanding,” he observed.<Unquote>
(5) Separation of church and state
“In this respect, we defer to Caesar what Caesar has legislated but the two tacked on stipulations in this instance are egregious and flatly unacceptable.” — Malaysiakini (March 16)
“I don’t think I can be faulted for engaging in a spurious triumphalism but the Christian circumspection about politics is wise – render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s is an admonition by Christ about the nature of politics. You may now see why that is so because politics is an arena inherently inhospitable to truth-telling,” expatiated the Jesuit-trained prelate.– Malaysiakini (Aug 7)