Fokus Sekitar Mohamad Razali & Modus Operandi DAP 1.

Oleh 

Mohamad Razali 

Bekas Pengarah Strategik Hal Ehwal Orang Melayu-Islam DAP
Siri 6. (sambungan dari siri 5: Saya Terima Latihan Mossad, Ejen Israel -Mohamad...)

Sila lihat Pemikiran Pemimpin Bekas DAP

1. Bekas ADUN DAP Masuk PAS, Akan Wujud GHP DAP?
2. Jika Tidak Kerana PAS, DAP Tidak Boleh Jejak Kaki ...

3. Tinggalkan DAP Kerana Strategi DAP Kuasai PKR/PAS ...

4. Selami Pemikiran Seorang Bekas Pemimpin DAP Shen Y...

5. Roket vs Bulan: Penyebab Saya Keluar DAP - Lim H...

6. Bongkar Rahsia Modus Operandi DAP. - Mohamad Raz...

7. Siapa Di Belakang DAP? -Mohamad Razali Dedah Lag...

8. Mohamad Razali Repot Polis: Apa Kata Lim Guan Eng...

9. Tindakan Lanjut 'Gangster (?)' Lim Guan Eng.. Tawa...

10. Saya Terima Latihan Mossad, Ejen Israel -Mohamad...

Mohamad Razali: Mat Sabu 'Diam' Sebab Terima Duit DAP?

AIDCNews – 18/12/14 – Facebooker pro PAS, Tok Usin Ceroii mempersoalkan sikap mendiamkan diri Timbalan Presiden PAS, Mohamad Sabu (Mat Sabu) walaupun DAP secara terang-terangan mengkritik PAS berkaitan isu ulama dan hudud.

“Apa kejadahnya PKR dan DAP yang saban hari dok serang PAS khususnya Ulama? Apa kejadahnya DAP dan PKR pi dok jolok bab hudud?

“Agak-agak hampa, apa motif dan agenda depa berbuat begitu?

“Mana pi suara kawan baik Lim Guan Eng iaitu Mat Sabu yang juga Timbalan Presiden PAS? Apakah Mat Sabu tak boleh nasihatkan Lim Guan Eng? Apakah suara Mat Sabu langsung tidak diendahkan oleh Lim Guan Eng atau Mat Sabu yang memberi lampu hijau kepada Lim Guan Eng untuk gasak Islam, Ulama dan PAS?

“Atau Mat Sabu dah hilang teloq dan suara kerana diberi jawatan dan gaji yang lumayan dalam anak syarikat kerajaan Pulau Pinang?,” soal facebooker itu.

Turut disertakan facebooker itu satu poster wajah Mat Sabu didahinya ditulis ‘$$$’ dan wajah Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng, didahinya ditulis ‘Tauke’

Pendedahan Mat Sabu menerima habuan daripada DAP bukan perkara baharu, malah telah didedahkan bloggerIbrahim Baba (IB) pada tahun 2012.

“Menurut suatu khabaran bahawa Mat Sabu menerima setiap bulan sumbangan sebanyak RM15,000 tunai di Pulau Pinang. Biasanya Mat Sabu akan ke Pulau Pinang di awal bulan untuk kutip wang tersebut.

“Seorang petugas dikatakan akan menyerah 150 keping wang tunai bernilai RM100 dalam sampul yang mana Mat Sabu terimanya tanpa mengira samada ianya cukup atau tidak.

“Dikatakan juga bahawa petugas ini telah diamanahkan oleh majikannya untuk “jaga” keperluan Mat Sabu. Petugas ini turut maklum bahawa ada lagi beberapa rakannya yang ditugaskan untuk menyalurkan dana kepada pemimpin PAS yang lain namun beliau tidak tahu siapa yang “jaga” siapa. Strategi mereka ialah seorang “jaga” seorang pemimpin PAS – supaya maklumat tidak bocor,” dedah blogger itu.

Pada tahun 2013, bekas aktivis Melayu-DAP, Mohamad Razali bin Abdul Rahman turut mengesahkan Mat Sabu adalah tali barut Guan Eng.

Petikan pendedahan Mohamad Razali tentang Mat Sabu :

Lepas setengah jam, dia call. Saya tak mahu jawab dah. Lepas itulah pada 18 Mei, seorang pemimpin tertinggi PAS menghubungi saya. Saya dengan beliau ni cukup rapat, lebih kurang abang dengan adiklah, kami dua ni. Banyak tempat kami pi bersama.

Semasa kejadian ni, beliau berada di luar negara. Lepas balik ni, mungkin dia tahu, dia call saya. Saya panggil dia abang. Dia call, bagi salam tak jawab juga. Dia pun serupa juga, maki saya.

“Awat hang ni bengong pi buat laporan polis ni? Siapa suruh hang pi buat?.”

“Abang, ini isu agama bang.”

“Takpe, demi politik agama kita boleh kompromi.” Dia kata.

“Tak salah kita kompromi agama demi politik. Matlamat utama kita nak tawan Putrajaya. Siapa yang suruh hang pi buat benda ni? Hang ni calon yang akan bertanding. Siapa suruh hang buat? Ni, hang pikiaq masa depan hang, masa depan anak hang, bini hang. Hang tak sepatutnya buat benda ni. Aku nak hang tarik balik laporan polis hari ni juga. Aku nak hang tarik balik.”

“Sorry bang, isu agama..mana boleh. Abang tau tak benda ni berlaku?”

“Memang aku tau berlaku. Takpa, kita menang dulu Putrajaya, lepas tu kita tau la kita nak buat apa. Janji menang dulu.”

Saya kata dia, “Isu agama.”

“Aku kata takpa..takpalah. adakah Islam hang lebih daripada aku? Aku Pas tak ada apa. Hang DAP tahu apa?”. Sampai tahap tu dia kata kat saya.

“Aku nak hang tarik balik laporan ni. Hang tarik.”

Saya masih bertegas saya takkan tarik balik. “Bang, walau apa pun terjadi, saya takkan tarik balik.”

“Hang pasai apa keteqaq (degil) sangat ni? Pasai apa hang jadi macam ni? Apa dah jadi dengan hang? Okay, sekarang kita settle. Kami sanggup bagi kat hang RM1 juta kalau hang sanggup tarik balik laporan polis tu.”

RM1 juta ditawarkan kepada saya. Cukup senang dia kata, kalau setuju dalam masa tiga hari kita akan sediakan wang tu. Dalam masa tiga hari sahaja. Selepas itu dia kata, dalam masa seminggu, kita akan terbangkan saya, anak saya, bini saya, lari pi duduk di Melbourne. Jangan duduk di Malaysia. Duduk di Melbourne dia kata. Segala keperluan kami akan ditanggung oleh pihak-pihak tertentu di sana.

Tapi dia kata, “Sebelum hang pi Melbourne, hang buat satu perkara kat kami, cukup. Hang tolong kami satu benda cukup.”

Saya tanya kat dia, “Apa dia?.”

“Hang buat satu sidang akhbar. Dalam sidang akhbar tu, hang kata, saya ni dipaksa oleh UMNO untuk membuat laporan polis tu.”

Dia suruh saya tuduh UMNO. Saya kata kat dia, “Abang, yang buat laporan polis ni saya. Pasai apa yang kita nak membabitkan pihak yang ketiga?”.

“Hang tuduhlah depa. Aku dok buat kerja ni, takkan hang tak tau kot. Hang tuduh depa cukup, lepas tu hang lari pi duduk sana. Kita tahulah kita nak buat apa.”

Pemimpin PAS, ingat Tuan-tuan kenal kot siapa dia ni. Semua kenal. Ini merupakan lagu yang paling-paling dia sukalah (tayangan lagu Hindustan).

Tuan-tuan kenal ya. Timbalan Presiden PAS sekarang.

Dulu, pada masa kejadian tahun lalu, beliau merupakan Ahli Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat. Mohamad Sabu..beliau merupakan rakan yang cukup baiklah dengan saya. Cukup rapat.

So, matlamat menghalalkan cara. Janji dapat tawan Putrajaya cukup, apa pun halal sampai ke tahap tu mereka ni. Saya tak sangka mereka agama pun boleh jual. Bukan dah jual, dah gadai, dah lelong dekat DAP.

Mesej Anwar Fokus Tulisan Pengarah Institut Israel…

AIDCNews – 04/09/13 – Apakah mesej tersirat Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim apabila meletakkan tulisan Pengarah Institut Israel, Michael J. Koplow di laman peribadinya, anwaribrahimblog.com semalam ?

Selain Pengarah Institut Israel, Koplow adalah pemilik Ph.D dari Universiti Georgetown, individu yang pakar dalam politik Pendemokrasian Timur Tengah dan menulis secara berkala di laman Uthmaniyyah dan Zionis.
Tulisan Koplow yang diambil Anwar itu dari foreignaffairs.com bertajuk “First They Came For The Islamists” yang ditulis pada 28 Ogos.

foreignaffairs.com adalah media online milik Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

CFR merupakan satu organisasi ‘kongsi gelap’ di Amerika Syarikat (AS), didalangi oleh golongan yang berkepentingan Zionis (neo-konservatif) terutamanya terhadap polisi luar AS di mana, Anwar salah seorang yang juga berkepentingan dalam organisasi itu. Baca selanjut, sila klik di sini

Koplow dalam tulisannya menyimpulkan, “Pengajaran daripada Tunisia adalah bahawa apabila Islam telah berlalu, maka pembangkang sekular akan menjadi pemimpin seterusnya”.

Pengajaran sejarah revolusi di Tunisia itu juga menurut Koplow sekarang ini juga turut berlaku di Mesir.

Persoalannya, pengajaran dari Tunisia dan Mesir itu apa mesej tersirat di Malaysia, di mana Anwar mengetuai Pakatan Rakyat, kombinasi parti sekular, DAP pimpinan Lim Kit Siang dan parti Islamik, Pas, pimpinan Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Anwar sendiri menurut bekas Ketua pengarang Suara Keadilan, Dzulkarnain Taib mengetuai parti liberal dan plural yang turut terkelompok dalam parti sekular. Baca selanjutnya sila klik di sini dan sini

Blog azlantaib menyimpulkan apabila Anwar berminat memfokuskan tulisan Koplow bermakna beliau mahu memberi mesej tersirat terhadap Pas.

“Mungkin ramai yang tidak perasan bahawa gerakan menukar regim di Tunisia adalah ditunjangi oleh kumpulan revolusiner yang dikatakan sebagai ‘Islamist-Free‘.

“Kumpulan revolusiner ini adalah terdiri dari golongan intelektual, peguam dan kesatuan sekerja yang berfahaman sekular.

“Justeru, adalah menjadi harapan Anwar supaya dirinya akan mengepalai pertukaran rejim mengikut acuan di Tunisia, agar dirinya mendapat pengiktirafan dan sokongan dari Israel!

“Sementara nasib Hadi Awang pula, akan terus bagai melukut di tepi gantang,” rumus blogger itu.

Menurut blog azlantaib, Koplow sebelum ini pernah mengupas persoalan Islamist-Free di Tunisia dalam rencananya bertajuk “Why Tunisia’s Revolution Is Islamist-Free.”

Lampiran tulisan Koplow dipetik dari anwaribrahimblog.com :

First They Came for the Islamists
Egypt’s Tunisian Future

By Michael J. Koplow

An Islamist political party does well at the polls, and an authoritarian regime goes after it with a vengeance, killing its activists and arresting its leaders. The party is driven underground while secularists and other political groups applaud the government’s harsh measures, all taken in the name of eliminating a terrorist threat. Meanwhile, the regime and the non-Islamist parties assure the world that once the Islamists have been dealt with, the regular political process will resume again.

So it has happened in Egypt, but it is also the story of Tunisia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when hopes for a democratic transition were smashed after a campaign of repression that first targeted Islamists but eventually grew into a much wider effort to eliminate all political opposition. Tunisia’s experience offers a glimpse of what may be yet to come in Egypt — and suggests that Egyptian secularists should think twice before supporting the army’s efforts to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood.

After replacing President Habib Bourguiba in a bloodless coup in November 1987, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, a military officer, embarked on a program of liberalization and democratization that was at that point unprecedented in the region. His government released all political prisoners and gave them amnesty, revised the laws governing the press and political parties, and got every political bloc — including the Islamist Ennahda Party — to sign a national pact guaranteeing civil liberties and free elections.

Those elections were held on April 2, 1989, and were at the time the most competitive in the country’s history, if not in the entire Arab world. Although the winner-take-all system guaranteed that Ben Ali’s party would carry the day, given its organizational advantages developed over decades of unopposed rule, the president and most observers assumed that the secular opposition parties would emerge as the dominant opposition. Instead, the Islamists received the highest share of the opposition vote, 14.5 percent, a figure that was likely deflated due to fraud.

Once Ben Ali finished with the Islamists, he trained his sights on the rest of the opposition.

Just after the election, The New York Times declared, “Tunisia is undergoing a transition from a one-man dictatorship to a much more open society with a sleight of hand that could furnish lessons for Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet leader.” The article went on to quote the head of the Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights saying, “I am absolutely certain of Ben Ali’s good will.”

As it turned out, though, the prospect of a strong Islamist opposition, and especially of an Islamist government at some point down the road, was too much for Ben Ali and the Tunisian state to bear. The government launched a brutal crackdown, killing 1,000 Islamists, jailing another 30,000, and forcing into exile the leader of Ennahda, Rachid al-Ghannouchi. The regime justified its actions by claiming that the Islamists were terrorists out to sow discord and tear Tunisia apart.

Only because of the national security threat that they presented, Ben Ali argued, were the Islamists being targeted.Even as the government’s campaign against Islamists turned violent and repressive, Tunisia’s secular opposition parties cheered it on. Fearful of the possibility of Tunisia’s Islamists emulating the Algerian intifada taking place next door, the secularists had no problem with the state neutralizing the threat of political Islam.

Furthermore, given the country’s history of secularism, most Tunisians did not want to see Islamists of any stripe coming to power, and so they watched quietly as Ennahda was driven underground.

The twist is that once Ben Ali finished with the Islamists, he trained his sights on the rest of the opposition as well. Even if his crackdown initially stemmed from a legitimate ideological fear of Islamism, once he started down the authoritarian path, it was only a short skip and a jump to viewing all political opponents as enemies. In early 1992, the government shut down secular newspapers and magazines, imprisoned liberal journalists, and passed a new law of associations that curtailed the actions of human rights groups. A whole generation of secular opposition leaders, including Tunisia’s current president, Moncef Marzouki, found themselves in jail. In the 1994 sham presidential election, Ben Ali ran unopposed after disallowing all other candidates from running, and in 1999, he was “reelected” with 99 percent of the vote.

Egypt is now in the throes of a similar campaign to rid the country of its Islamists. The military rulers have charged Muslim Brotherhood members with terrorism and murder, and they are considering formally labeling the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and banning it entirely.

Although Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s erstwhile strongman, did not allow the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in politics formally, even he did not go so far as to ban the group, and the contemplation of such a move in conjunction with the unprecedented arrest of the Brotherhood’s supreme guide demonstrates just how far the military is willing to go. To be sure, the Brotherhood-led government under former President Mohamed Morsi was hardly a paragon of democracy, and Brotherhood members have indeed resorted to violence since his ouster. But the terrorism charges represent a major escalation in anti-Islamist rhetoric since the military coup, and they allow the army to justify all its actions in the name of security.

In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood’s secular opponents, many of whom opposed the military when it last ruled the state following the toppling of Mubarak, are not only staying out of the streets but also actively supporting the anti-Brotherhood campaign. Much like their Tunisian counterparts two decades ago, Egyptian secularists have convinced themselves that the government is out to eradicate only the Islamists, rather than all political opposition. The enemy of their enemy, many of them figure, is their friend. This frame of mind is spreading among less stridently secular Egyptians as well, with former Morsi voters and Egyptians who were previously sympathetic to the Brotherhood lauding the military’s moves.

For the military, the support from secular parties and ordinary Egyptians is crucial. The army’s removal of Morsi was made possible only by the presence of millions of protesters in the streets. Similarly, the widening crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood has been a much easier task, given the political and rhetorical support the army has received from Egyptian liberals. Were prominent liberal and secular voices to denounce the army’s moves, it would not bring an end to the Muslim Brotherhood’s troubles altogether, but it might constrain the military’s range of actions, just as public outrage against the last military government led to an expedited election and transition process. Yet for now, Egypt’s secularists seem to be backing the military to the hilt.

This view is shortsighted. Looking at the bigger picture, Egypt’s secular parties should realize that the authoritarian genie is extremely difficult to put back in the bottle once it has been released in the name of national security. Although the army is likely to return to the barracks at some point and resume ruling from behind the scenes — it has promised to hold elections by 2014 — it will not allow secular parties to construct a democratic system, let alone a liberal one. Egyptians are in for a rude awakening if they believe that just because the military has not yet put measures in place to repress all political opposition or begun to arrest secular figures, that it will not eventually do so. As Egyptians remember all too well, the allegedly temporary state of emergency put in place following President Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981 lasted 31 years. Today, there is little reason to think that the current monthlong state of emergency will expire along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s political fortunes.

If history is any guide, authoritarian governments do not confine their repression to only one category of opponents, and coercive measures taken in the name of security always morph into something larger. The secularists should think twice before cheering on the regime’s campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, no matter what type of language the government is using to couch its antidemocratic actions. The lesson of Tunisia is that once the Islamists are gone, the secularist opposition is going to be next.
Bersambung.

Perhatian: 
Sudah tentu pandangan ini bukan pandangan weblog Ibnu Hasyim. Weblog ini hanya memaparkan saja untuk diteliti, dan sila beri komen...