Skip navigation

EH… semalam rupanya pilihanraya kecil P212 Sibu.. tapi kenapa macam bukan berita utama macam Hulu Selangor yang lepas. Berita radio jam 7.00 pagi pun.. belakang2 je beritanya…


Kalau nak memburukkan pihak di sana dapat RM4 juta suatu ketika dulu.. berapa juta pulak agaknya dia dapat sekarang untuk memburukkan pihak di sini sekarang??

Makan duit haram kiri kanan, depan belakang… patut la….

Di suatu pagi yang indah, aku memandu kereta di lorong tengah sebuah lebuhraya 3 lorong. Kelajuan antara 70-80 km/j. Keadaan lalulintas agak sibuk, tapi tidak sesak. Maknanya belah kiri aku kenderaan yang lebih perlahan dari aku, dan belah kanan yang lebih laju.

Tiba-tiba, ada beberapa bijik motor besar dengan lampu biru berkelip2 dan berbunyi… weuuuuu.. weeuuuu… pin pin.. sambil tangan kiri penonggangnya menunjukkan tangan kiri pada semua kenderaan yang dah sampai DULU macam suruh ketepi.. ketepi.. kalau boleh cakap lebih kurang macam ni kot bunyiknya,”Hoi!! Korang ketepi DULU! Korang ketepi DULU! Ada orang yang UTAMA nak lalu!”. Maka berbondong2lah kenderaan orang yang diuTAMAKan tadi lalu DULU. Sampai 2 lorong pulak tu. Bangkai sungguh!

Dah la minyak claim, toll free, jalan sana sini pun claim.. banyak pulak tu.. kalau korang yang UTAMA ni tak payah guna pengiring yang macam samseng tuh… jalan macam rakyat yang diDAHULUkan nih.. kan lagi bagus. Nak sampai cepat, keluar la awal. Bebal!

An Analysis of the Procedures and Claims on Unfair Dismissal
Heard by the Industrial Court of Malaysia, 1988-1990
MARA Institute of Technology School of Business and Management

The number of workers using the machinery of the Industrial Relations Act to claim unfair dismissal has increased steadily. Who are these workers? What are the procedures they follow in order to seek reinstatement?

This paper seeks to analyse the Industrial Court Awards from 1988 to 1990 in order to develop a profile of these workers. The conciliation process carried out by the Department of Industrial Relation is relatively hassle-free but the arbitration proceedings both delay and complicate the attempt of the worker to either be reinstated or get compensation for the loss of employment.


Workers have certain rights which are protected by statute. One of the more important of these rights is that of security of employment. Employees in Malaysia cannot have their services terminated at will by their employer.

The Industrial Relations Act of 1967 effectively prevents an employer from dismissing an employee without good cause.

The purpose of this paper is to establish a profile of employees who have been dismissed and who seek reinstatement according to the procedures laid out in Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act.

A detailed study of the local literature shows that there is only one book dealing directly with the subject matter and that is Syed Ahmad Idid’s ‘The Law of Domestic Inquiries and Dismissals’. This book concentrates on the preliminary to a dismissal, that is the domestic or due inquiry. An earlier work by Latif Sher Mohamed gives lengthy quotations from Industrial Court awards on matters pertaining to discipline including dismissals, due inquiry, misconduct, reinstatement, retrenchment and termination. There is, however, little attempt to compile these or comment on them in any useful manner for the practitioner.

In my book, ‘Malaysian Industrial Relations’, one chapter discusses disciplinary action, the domestic inquiry, the right to hire and fire and the Industrial Court’s thinking on dismissal. The treatment is very brief as the book is only an introductory text on industrial relations. Existing literature on the subject of dismissal, whether Malaysian, English or Indian is written primarily for the human resource practitioner and manager who will be involved in making decisions on hiring and firing. What of the worker? What written materials are available to him? There exists a brief work entitled, ‘A Workers’ Guide to Labour Laws in Malaysia’ published by the Selangor Graduates Society in 1984. However
this book is now out of-date and needs revising.

The Procedures For Claiming Unfair Dismissal

What does a worker do once his contract of service has been terminated? The relevant legislation covering this situation is the Industrial Relations Act of 1967 (amended 1989). Prior to the recent amendments, Section 20 of the Act allowed a non-unionised worker to file a complaint with the Department of Industrial Relations if he believed he had been unfairly dismissed. Within 30 days (now 60 days) of the dismissal the worker concerned had to write to the Department giving his name and address and request reinstatement. Section 18 (1) provided for a worker who was
represented by a union to report a dispute to the same Department.


On receiving a complaint of unfair dismissal, the Department of Industrial Relations set in motion the wheels of the process of conciliation whereby the officers offer their help to try and settle the dispute between the worker and his employer. Conciliation should not be confused with arbitration. The conciliator can only use his experience, listening skills and persuasive abilities. He cannot force a settlement on the parties.

If the conciliation procedures are not successful, the Minister of Human Resources (previously known
as the Minister of Labour) is informed and he will decide whether or not to refer the case for arbitration
by the Industrial Court. Table 1 shows that not all unresolved cases were referred to the Court.
If the Minister decides not to refer a complaint to the Court the worker could apply to the High Court to
quash the Ministerial decision.

The conciliation service of the Department of Industrial Relations is very effective in settling complaints of unfair dismissal. Table 1 illustrates this.

Alternative Machinery

There is an alternative machinery available to the dismissed employer other than the procedure described above. He can take steps to sue the employer in the High Court either for breach of contract or wrongful dismissal. This route might be used by government servants who are not covered by the Industrial Relations Act, workers who fail to observe the 30 day time limit (now 60 days), and those who are not considered “workmen” under the Act.


Once a case is referred to the Industrial Court, the employer and the employee will be served with a notice informing them of the date for mention of the case. This notice also points out that if either of the parties wish to be represented by a legal practitioner, they are required to fill out the appropriate forms.

Table 2 shows how employees have been represented at the Court in the three years of the study. In a large majority of the cases, even where the party at the Court is a union acting on behalf of one or more of its members, lawyers were involved in representing the worker. For non-unionised workers, the percentage of those using the services of a lawyer was even higher. In 1988, 72% of the non-unionised workers had a lawyer, in 1989 74% and in 1990 59%. In only 7% of cases on average did workers attempt to represent themselves.

A close study shows that where the worker appeared before the Court personally, it was mostly to give details of a settlement made out of court. A number of reasons for the overwhelming presence of lawyers could be put forward. Firstly, the language of the Court in the three years under study was mostly English. The majority of workers would find it difficult to prepare their written submissions and present their case orally in English in the Court.

Secondly, no matter how capable the average worker may be, the ability to clearly and cogently present a case in court, and cross-examine witnesses, many of whom will be managers, calls for skills beyond the reach of most. Thus the workers rely on lawyers to present their case.

The Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) offers its services to workers at reasonable rates but the number of of officers available to present cases was very few in the years in question. The Court has a heavy agenda. The number of claims of unfair dismissal heard by the Industrial Court has increased significantly over the years. Table 3 shows the number of awards relating to dismissals handed down.

Profile of workers Claiming Unfair Dismissal

An analysis of the Industrial Court awards reveals certain information about those who claim unfair dismissal. It is possible to identify the employee’s salary range, his level in the organizational hierarchy, his length of service and other useful data.

The number of claimants of unfair dismissal is shown in Table 4. The total number of claimants exceed the number of cases heard because in many instances a group of workers are involved. This is especially true of cases relating to retrenchment, for example in Award No. 83/89, there were 19 claimants and in Award No. 255/89 there were 31 workers claiming reinstatement.

Where the reason for dismissal is misconduct, it is more likely that only one or two workers will be involved although in Award No. 256/90, 58 workers were dismissed for refusing to do overtime. It appears that the workers’ concerted boycott of overtime was a tactic to pressurize the employer during a dispute over the dismissal of a union leader. Interestingly, the Court found the penalty of dismissal in this situation “excessively harsh”.

The proportion of female claimants was far less than that of males. Over the three years only 22% of the claimants were female. It can only be surmised why this might be so. It could be that as females make up a smaller percentage of the total work force logically they would form a smaller group of those dismissed. It is also possible that women are less likely to commit misconduct. In the 1990 cases, the employer’s alleged reasons given for the termination of 41 of the 83 cases where female claimants were involved is shown in Table 5. Clearly few women were dismissed for misconduct. Generally, women are more conformist and more accepting of organisational discipline.’ It can be further
conjectured that women are less aware of their rights or more timid and thus unwilling to “fight back” if faced with dismissal.

It is unfortunate that it is not possible to estimate the percentage of the work force who are dismissed annually and the percentage who end up in the Industrial Court. This cannot be done because there exist no figures on the total number of workers terminated each year. There is no legal requirement for an employer to report dismissals to any authority and thus there is no way of knowing how many dismissals take place.

Employers are requested to report retrenchments to the Ministry of Human Resources. In 1988 some 3,000 retrenchments were reported but the number of those retrenched fluctuates wildly depending on the economic situation. In the six month period of January-June 1987 there were 10,000 workers reported retrenched. The three year period 1988-1990 was a boom time for the economy and the number of retrenchments will have dropped considerably. Indeed the country is now facing a labour shortage. In such a situation it may be assumed that employers would be more reluctant to dismiss workers even when guilty of misconduct knowing that it will be difficult to replace them.

What percentage of the work force bring claims to the Industrial Court? In 1988 the number of workers employed in the private sector was 5.2 million (Min. of Finance: 1988-1989). Public sector employees are excluded because this study deals only with those workers eligible to bring claims to the Industrial Court. Thus the 289 claimants whose cases were heard by the Court in 1988 represent a minuscule 0.0005%.

What is known about the claimants other than their sex? Not all the “workmen” who claim unfair dismissal work at the lower levels of an organization. A significant number of the claimants can be categorised as managers. Evidence as to whether a claimant was a manager or not was gleaned from the stated job title and any description of his duties. Supervisors are included here as managers.

However, senior executives with professional functions but apparently no subordinates reporting to them were not considered to be managers. Table 6 shows that the Court can by no means be described as the “working man ‘s court”, if by workman is meant non-executive level workers. One quarter of the claimants were managers, a figure which would appear to be out of proportion to the number of managers in the country. Presumably managers are over-represented at the Court not because they are more likely to be dismissed but because they are more knowledgeable. They are aware of the procedures for making representations, are willing to use the system and have the financial resources to
pay for legal assistance.

Table 7 shows whether the claimants were unionised or not. Clearly most of the workmen claiming unfair dismissal were not union members. It can be speculated that employers may be more cautious when terminating the services of union members knowing full well that the worker will, as a matter of course, contact his union and request its help.

What level of salary was earned by the claimants?3 Table 8 shows that a quarter of the claimants earned over $1,000 per month and interestingly, this tallies closely with the number of managers. However, there are cases of workers who are not managers yet earn more than $1,000 per month. It is not possible to categorically state that a large proportion of the claimants were in the lower-paid group given the fact that there is no data in at least half the cases.

How long have the claimants been working with the company at the time their services were terminated? Again, in over fifty per cent of the cases no information is given. Nevertheless it can be seen from Table 9 that on the whole, the spread is fairly even, that is, there are very junior workers who were dismissed (those with less than three years’ service) but there are also those who have been with the same employer more than nine years, some of them for most of their working life. In a labour market of relatively young workers, those retrenched or dismissed after the age of 35 will have some difficulty in finding alternative employment. The situation is perhaps worse for those who are retrenched and thus are out of a job through no fault of their own.

It is frequently said that justice, to be effective should be speedy. This maxim undoubtedly applies in cases where workers have been dismissed. Where the worker is unable to find alternative employment quick justice is imperative especially as Malaysia has no welfare benefits for the unemployed. Put simply, those out of work have no income. The Industrial Relations Act lays down no time limit for the settling of disputes and claims of unfair dismissal but it does say in Section 30 (3):

“The Court shall make its award without undue delay and where practicable within 30 days from the
date of reference to it of the trade dispute or of a reference to it under Section 20 (3).”

The intention of the legislators is very clear. Decisions of the Court should be as expeditious as possible. Does the system at present fulfil the requirement of speedy justice? The statistics are very clear.

Table 10 shows that the worker can expect to wait at least seven months or more from the date his case is referred to the Court by the Minister of Human Resources to the first day of hearing. This time lapse is however by no means the end of the story. It is not uncommon for three years to pass from the actual date of dismissal till the award is handed down. In Award No.20 of 1990 the claimant was dismissed on 29 December 1987, his case was referred to the Court by the Minister on 24 August 1988, and the Court hearing was held on 7 February 1990. Interestingly this long waiting period could be considered an anticlimax for the worker in that particular case as, finally, a Consent Award was recorded at the hearing.

In Award No. 86 of 1990 the worker was dismissed in September 1987, the date of reference was March 1988 and the first date of hearing was March 1989. The hearings stretched over 16 days and were only completed and an award handed down in February 1990. Comments and complaints about the delay in the process have long been heard. An examination of the process shows that delay can creep in at several points. The worker had 30 days in which to make representations to the Industrial Relations Department. Then the conciliation process will begin. This may become drawn out for two reasons. The work load of the conciliating officer is heavy and bound to increase. Although the number of cases reported to the Department has risen rapidly with the growth in the labour force and the brisk
pace of industrialisation, the number of of officers has not increased.4 Further, as has been described above, as long as the Industrial Relations Officer believes there is a possibility of a settlement, he will continue to call meetings with the parties involved.

The conciliation process takes place at two levels-regional office and headquarters. The Minister himself may contact the parties. Obviously therefore it can easily take three or four months to discover that settlement is impossible, have a report prepared and present the case to the Minister for a decision whether or not to refer to the Court.

Once a case is referred to the Court, the hearing dates will be decided upon. This is the second part of the process that leads to serious delays. A date acceptable to three parties has to be agreed upon. The Court itself is supposed to have a President and a number of chairmen to hear cases. However, at various times, especially in 1989 and 1990 there were long periods when vacancies existed. Not only is the Court frequently short-staffed but the number of lawyers who deal with workers’ cases is very few.
Their court schedules are full and so cases get put off until the advocates are available.

In which industries were the claimants employed?5 Table 11 shows that the workers claiming unfair dismissal came from a range of industries and organisations including a few from non-business organisations.

Outcomes of Workers’ Claims

What were the outcomes of the workers’ claims that their dismissals were unfair or without just cause?

Table 12 reveals the results of the worker’s attempts to get reinstatement. A consent award is where the parties have come to a settlement out of court and this agreement is presented to the Court either before the date of hearing, on the first day of hearing or at some point during the proceedings. In nearly all consent awards, which constitute one third the total number of cases each year, a sum of money is paid to the claimants in return for his agreement to withdraw his case. why do employers not settle at the conciliation stage? It can be assumed that many employers are confident that the worker’s case has no merits and will not be referred to the Industrial Court by the Minister. They therefore prefer to “hang out” or “wait and see”. If the case is referred however, they may be advised by their lawyer that they
would actually save money and time by paying the worker a sum of money. By compensating the worker they will save legal costs and more importantly they will avoid spending long periods of time at the Court.

Cases are struck off by the powers given to the Court under Section 29(a) which says:
“The Court may, in relation to any dispute before it or in relation to any reference to it under Section 20
a) order that any party be joined, substituted or struck off’
Mostly cases are struck off because either the claimant informs the Court in advance that he is withdrawing or, more commonly, the claimant fails to present his statement in case and fails to turn up in Court or have a representative there to argue his case.

Reinstatement was relatively unusual-it was awarded in only 5 % of the cases, Where the dismissal is held to be unfair or without good cause the Court is reluctant to award reinstatement. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, given the delays described above which means that the dismissal took place two or three years previously, the employer will in all likelihood have filled the vacancy caused by the dismissal and the worker involved will have found a new job. Disruption to both parties is undesirable. Furthermore, by reinstating the worker some industrial relations problems may follow.

Compensation was awarded in over one quarter of the cases analysed. This is the preferred decision of the Court when it is held that the employee was unfairly dismissed. The relief in lieu of reinstatement usually granted takes two forms, viz, “back wages” and compensation. Back wages are calculated from the date of dismissal to the last day of hearing up to a maximum of 24 months. This component of the compensation package has received criticism from a number of quarters.

One writer suggests that the Court has no jurisdiction to award backwages as according to the Employment Act 1955, “wages” is defined as “remuneration which is payable to an employee for work done in respect of his contract of service” (Gomez: 1988) . This critic says “One is paid wages for work done and not for work not done.” The word backwages is really a misnomer. The monies paid out are a form of compensation. The compensation proper is usually calculated as one month’s salary times the number of years service. On occasion the Court has deducted between 30 and 50% of the compensation awarded because it considered the employee to have been partially responsible for his dismissal. See
Awards No. 241 of 1990 and 255 of 1990.

The “others” category under outcomes of claims refers to a few odd cases where either the Court found it had no jurisdiction to hear the case including two cases where the worker was considered to have resigned, i.e. he was not dismissed.

Causes of The Dismissals

What were the alleged causes of the dismissal of the employees involved?

It should be noted that on occasion the Court discovered during the proceedings that the alleged reason was not the real reason. For example, several times purported retrenchments were in fact disguised cases of victimisation. Table 13 clarifies the reasons for the dismissals as alleged by the employer. The reasons can be classified under the headings of redundancy, misconduct, inadequate performance and others.

The “other” reasons for the dismissal include cases of termination simpliciter and constructive dismissal. There exist employers who still are not aware that termination simpliciter is not acceptable under the Industrial Relations Act.

In case No. 84 of 1990 the company’s Personnel and Administration Manager said, “the company can give contractual notice without giving any reason . . . the Claimant’s termination was based solely on contract. The Claimant has not committed any misconduct.” The Court’s comment on this was, “the concept and practice of termination of a workman by contractual notice for no reason has been literally thrown overboard. The termination of dismissal must be for just cause or excuse.”

Constructive dismissal is a relatively new concept and refers to situations where the employer takes action which repudiates the contract of employment of the worker. Some interesting cases belong in this category as they illustrate the extent to which employers will sometimes go to get rid of a particular employee.

Redundancy cases can be expected to increase or decrease depending on the economic situation.
Nevertheless even in times of economic “boom”, some businesses find they are overstaffed and need to retrench. The right of the employer to re-organise his business and to decide on the number of employees necessary at any point of time is a prerogative not questioned by the Court. However, the procedures followed by the employer are of significance and whether there is any evidence of mala fide is the concern of the Court.

Misconduct and inadequate performance are the most common causes of dismissal. If employers have the right to terminate employees for redundancy, misconduct and inability to do work satisfactorily, what then causes employers to lose their cases at the Industrial Court? The final section of this paper will briefly examine the implications of Table 14 which looks at the causes of the termination and the outcomes. What mistakes are made by employers which led to their having to either reinstate or compensate the employees they had dismissed? Basically there were four (4) reasons why the Court found the claimants to be unfairly dismissed.

Employers could not prove their cases, they failed to follow proper procedures, they acted apparently in ignorance of employee rights or purposely victimised workers especially as regards trade union activities.

Lack of Proof

Employers frequently were unable to prove their cases to the satisfaction of the Court. Where misconduct was alleged the employer often had insufficient or no documentation. Furthermore, witnesses were either lacking or unconvincing.

The delay in hearing cases works to the detriment of the employer in this instance as some witnesses may have left the organization and be untraceable. Eighteen months to two years later, those who remain in the organization will find it difficult to tell their stories accurately. The same problem applies to cases of retrenchment.

The employer was not always able to show that a particular position was no longer needed or that the company was facing serious financial problems.

For example, in Award No. 74 of 1989 the Court said, “the employer cannot be allowed, under the cover of recession and reorganisation to rid himself of an employee so as to replace him with a lower paid new recruit, or to dismiss one for some offences committed in the past which did not justify dismissal at the time.”

In Award No.86 of 1990 a case was described for which the hearings spread over 16 days. The reason given for the dismissal was redundancy but the claimant was able to show that in fact her services were terminated because she was unwilling to accept a change in position from Legal Officer to Bank Officer. The Court found that though there was no change in salary, the transfer was a humiliating demotion for the claimant. The work previously done by the claimant still existed and was either still given to her or it was passed to outsiders.

Improper Procedures

In many instances employers lost their case because they followed inadequate procedures. Where the cause of dismissal was misconduct, the Court expected the employer to carry out a domestic inquiry run according to the principles of natural justice. Indeed, this requirement is mandatory for employees covered by the Employment Act. A great number of employers have tried to argue in the Court that an inquiry is not always necessary and while the Court has contradicted itself on occasions, the general thinking of the Court is that a fair hearing is an essential requirement for a workman to be properly dismissed.

When employers pleaded redundancy as the cause of dismissal, their chief difficulty was in following the principle of Last in, First Out (LIFO) as recommended in the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony, a document prepared in 1975 which lays out ideal practices in the field of personnel management and industrial relations.


A number of cases stand out as examples of employers victimising workers for participating in legal activities of a trade union. For example, in Award No. 306 of 1988 the Court examined the issue of fixed term contracts. Some 35 teachers of a private school did not have their contracts renewed because they were actively involved in trade union activities. The Court found that “the intention of the school was to rid itself of the union. The school’s attitude and action blatantly fly in the face of the law and the Government’s policy of the freedom of workers to form trade unions.” Fortunately, such cases are rare.


This analysis of recent Court Awards reveals that claimants are mostly male, non- unionised, lower level workers whose monthly wages range from a few hundred dollars to four or five thousand. Their length of service also varies widely from less than a year to 15 years or more. The most common reason given for the dismissals was misconduct.
To what extent is the procedure of conciliation and arbitration readily accessible and understandable to the worker? Conciliation poses no special problems to the dismissed employee, and the officers of the Department of Industrial Relations are ever available to advise.

Indeed many employers perceive the officers to be sympathetic to the worker’s side.6 Should the case go to arbitration however, the process of decision-making is protracted and sufficiently complicated to require expensive legal assistance.

1) Aminuddin, M., (1990) Malaysian Industrial Relations, Singapore:McGraw-Hill.
2) Carrell M. R. and C.Heavrln, (1988) Collective Bargaining and Labour Relations,Columbus,
3) Fulmer, W.E. and A.l.V. Casey, (1990) Employment at Will: Options for Managers Academy of
Management 4 No. 2, 102-107.
4) Gomez. A.B. (1988) “Industrial Court’s Relief in Respect of Unjustified Dismissals Berita
Personnel, April, 1988.
5) Knell, A. (1989) Employment Law for the Small Business, London: Kogan Page. Latif Sher
Mohamed, (1982) Discipline Without Punishment Kuala Lumpur SMPD Mgt.
6) Ministry of Finance (1988-1989) Economic Report Kuala Lumpur
7) Rathus, S.A. and J. Nevid, (1989) Psychology and the Challenges of Life, Orlando, Fl.: Holt.
Robbins, S. (1982) Personnel, Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
8) Selangor Graduates Society (1984) A Workers’ Guide to the Labour Laws, Kuala Lumpur, n/p.
9) Syed Ahmad Idid, (1988) The Law of Domestic Inquiries and Dismissals, Kuala Lumpur

Suasana 1.

Abong: Dik, pam nombor 2, RM50.

Budak kaunter: Encik, ada mykad?

Abong: Err.. kena curi tadi.

Budak kaunter: Ada report polis ke? Tengok sini..

Abong: Ni tengah nak pegi la ni.. minyak kereta nak abih dah.. lampu dah nyala-nyala tu.

Budak kaunter: Kalau gitu, encik ni kira bukan warganegara ye. Satu liter RM4.00.

Abong:…perghhh… aku nak mengamuk.. aku nak mengamuk..

Oleh Dr Abdul Rashid Ahmad

QANAAH ialah kepuasan hati dengan rezeki yang ditentukan Allah. Dikatakan bahawa Allah menentukan lima perkara pada lima tempat iaitu kemuliaan pada ketaatan, kehinaan pada maksiat, kehebatan pada ibadat malam, hikmat kebijaksanaan pada perut yang kosong dan kekayaan pada sifat qanaah.

Qanaah bukanlah bermaksud hilang semangat untuk berkerja lebih keras demi menambah rezeki dan produktiviti. Malah, ia bertujuan supaya kita sentiasa bersyukur dengan rezeki yang dikurniakan Allah.

Rasulullah SAW bersabda yang bermaksud:

“Jadilah kamu seorang yang warak, nanti kamu akan menjadi sebaik-baik hamba Allah, jadilah kamu seorang qanaah, nanti kamu akan menjadi orang yang paling bersyukur kepada Allah, sedikitkanlah ketawa kerana banyak ketawa itu mematikan hati.” (Hadis riwayat al-Baihaqi)

Abu Bakar al-Maraghi pernah berkata, “Orang yang bijaksana itu mengurus urusan dunianya dengan qanaah, urusan akhiratnya dengan bersegera, ilmu dan bersungguh-sungguh.”

Allah berfirman yang bermaksud:

“Barang siapa yang mengerjakan amal salih, baik lelaki, mahupun perempuan dalam keadaan beriman, maka sesungguhnya akan kami berikan kepadanya kehidupan yang baik.” (Surah al-Nahl, ayat 97)

Majoriti ahli tafsir mengatakan bahawa kehidupan yang baik di dunia ialah dengan qanaah. Sabda Rasulullah SAW yang bermaksud:

“Tidaklah kekayaan itu dengan banyak harta, tetapi sesungguhnya kekayaan itu ialah kekayaan jiwa.” ( Hadis riwayat Bukhari dan Muslim)

Ulama sudah mengemukakan beberapa cara untuk memiliki sifat mulia ini antara lain ialah pertama, berjimat dalam perbelanjaan dan merancang perbelanjaan. Kedua, percaya bahawa dengan qanaah mendatang kemuliaan.

Sabda Rasulullah SAW yang bermaksud:

“Lihatlah orang yang lebih bawah daripada kamu, jangan melihat orang yang tinggi daripada kamu, kerana dengan demikian kamu tidak akan lupa segala nikmat Allah kepadamu.” (Hadis riwayat Bukhari dan Muslim)

Apabila seseorang itu bersyukur dengan nikmat Allah yang dikurniakan kepadanya, maka dia tidak akan bersifat bakhil dan kedekut menghulurkan bantuan kepada orang yang memerlukan. Tegasnya, dia menjadi seorang yang pemurah dalam masyarakatnya.

Dalam sejarah umat Islam, tercatat beberapa kisah mereka yang murah hati antaranya, diceritakan bahawa Abdullah bin `Amir membeli sebuah rumah kedai daripada Khalid bin `Uqbah dengan harga 90,000 dirham.

Tiba-tiba pada malam itu, dia mendengar anak isteri Khalid menangis. Lalu dia bertanya kepada isterinya: “Apa hal mereka itu?” Kemudian dia diberitahu bahawa mereka menangis kerana rumah mereka yang dijual.

Lantas Abdullah berkata kepada pembantunya: “Pergi dan suruh mereka datang ke sini.” Selepas mereka datang lalu dia terus menyatakan bahawa ambillah rumah itu kembali dan duit itu juga untuk kamu.

Dalam situasi dan ekonomi yang dihadapi umat manusia hari ini, alangkah beruntungnya umat Islam yang mendapat bimbingan daripada ajaran agamanya yang suci supaya tidak mengurus urusan dunia ini dengan kacamata keinginan nafsu semata-mata sebaliknya menjadi pengguna yang bijak , berhemat dan tidak tamak. Jadikanlah sifat qanaah yang mulia ini sebagai senjata untuk menghadapi ujian dan cabaran hidup dunia sementara ini.

Artikel diambil dari

Adalah salah kalau kita mengatakan bahawa tunjukan perasaan di Tehran dan kota-kota lain di Iran sebagai protest hanya tentang pilihanraya sahaja.

Hakikatnya Mahmoud Ahmadinejad telah menang.

Adalah juga salah untuk mengatakan bahawa tunjukan perasaan ini antara gulungan liberal yang menentang gulungan konservatif/kolot. Hakikatnya ke dua-dua kumpulan yang sedang bertelagah sama-sama mewakili theocracy yang kolot.

Mir Hossein Mousavi sebelum ini pernah menjadi Perdana Menteri dari 31 Oktober 1981 hingga 3 Ogos 1989. Kemudian jawatan perdana menteri ini telah dilupuskan.

Memang betul Amerika Syarikat semenjak dari zaman George W Bush telah menganjurkan dan mengeluarkan dana untuk membuat kerja kerja jahat terhadap Iran. Amerika telah menyokong kumpulan-kumpulan dan parti politik yang menentang kerajaan di Tehran. Ini memang tugas kuasa imperial Amerika.

Tetapi Mousavi dan Ahamadinejad TIDAK pro Amerika. Ini amat jelas. Mereka bukan boneka Amerika.

Amerika Syarikat masih dianggap sebagai Setan Dunia oleh kelas pemerintah di Iran. Tidak ada pemimpin politik Iran secara terang terangan yang akan berani membuat dasar pro Amerika. Ini kerana sebab sejarah.

Pada tahun 1953 Mohammed Mosaddeq telah menang pilihanraya dan dilantik sebagai Perdana Menteri Iran. Mosaddeq yang menjalankan dasar nasionalis telah memilik negarakan semua telaga minyak Iran. Mosaddeg akhirnya telah ditendang keluar.

Rampasan kuasa menendang Mosaddeq ini adalah perancangan CIA. Setelah Mosaddeq ditendang syarikat minyak Anglo-Amerika telah dibawa masuk kembali. Untuk gantinya Shah Ahmad Reza Pahlavi telah di nobatkan oleh CIA sebagai Raja sehingga tahun 1979 apabila revolusi Iran melupuskan sistem beraja di Iran.

Ini fakta saheh. Pada 4hb Jun 2009 yang lalu Barack Obama sendiri telah mengakui pekara ini dalam ucapan di Cairo. Ucapan Obama kepada ‘warga Islam’ dibuat dalam usaha Amerika ingin berbaik kembali dengan Iran.

Mari kita memahami siapa penyokong Ahmadinejad dan siapa pula penyokong Mousavi.

Semua yang menyokong Mousavi dan Ahmadinejad adalah orang Iran – Parsi. Mereka semua beragama Islam – Shiah. Hanya wujud kumpulan kecil di beberapa wilayah seperti di Baluchistan yang bermazhab Sunni. Mereka ini amat bersedia untuk menjadi khadam Amerika. Dua minggu sebelum pilihanraya di jalankan ada letupan bom di Zehdan – ibu kota Baluchistan. Ini kerja barua Amerika. Hakikatnya mazhab Sunni amat kecil untuk dapat melakukan apa-apa perubahan sosial.

Jadi apa sebenarnya yang berlaku di Tehran?

Semua analisa akhiranya menjurus kepada kepentingan ekonomi dan kelas.

Ahmadinejad mewakili gulungan bawahan – kaum tani di kampong-kampong dan kaum buruh di kota. Wajib difahami bahawa Iran bukan Tehran sama seperti Kuala Lumpur bukan Malaysia. Kaum tani dan kaum buruh ini telah dimanifestasikan melalui organisasi Basij. Basij asalnya adalah kumpulan anak-anak muda kampong dan anak muda msikin kota yang di rekrut ketika Iran dan Iraq berperang – 1980-1988.

Basij berasal dari kumpulan sukarela tetapi dua tahun lalu ianya telah diserap ke dalam pentabiran Ahmadinejad. Basij ini telah mendapat kontrek pembangunan, lesen-lesen dan menjawat lembaga-lembaga dibeberapa pusat pentabiran kerajaan yang ditubuhkan oleh Ahmadinejad. Lembaga ini samalah seperti SEDC ( State Economic Development Cooperation) yang ditubuhkan oleh PM Razak Hussein dahulu.

Ahmadinejad juga mendapat sokongan Pasdaran atau Soldadu Penjaga Revolusi. Ini adalah pasokan soldadu yang muncul di zaman Ayatolah Khomeini. Pasokan ini muncul sesudah revolusi untuk membersihkan tentera Iran dibawah Shah yang banyak menjadi talibarut Amerika. Pasokan Pasdaran ini mendewasa di kancah perang Iran/Iraq.

Basij dan Pasdran kini adalah asas sokongan yang amat kuat untuk Ahmadinejad di kawasan luar bandar dan kawasan miskin dalam kota. Kuasa ekonomi baru Basij yang telah dilembagakan ini mula menghakiskan dua kumpulan kelas ekonomi lama.

Kumpulan pertama adalah kelas borjuis industri/borjuis nasional yang di wakili oleh Rafsanjani seorang multi bilionaire. Rafsanjani – wakil kelas borjuis nasional – melihat dasar Ahmadinejad telah mengetatkan lagi sekatan ekonomi yang dilancarkan oleh Amerika terhadap Iran.

Rafsanjani towkay kacang Pastichio ini sedang melihat bertan-tan kacangnya tidak dapat di eksport. Kelas ini juga ingin berkembang luas – dari borjuis nasional untuk menjadi pemodal yang besar – multinasional – untuk mencari pasaran di dunia. Mereka juga bercita-cita untuk menjadi kelas industri tetapi telah gagal kerana wujudnya sekatan ekonomi.

Kumpulan kedua pula adalah apa yang dikenali sebagai Bazaari – ini kelas lama yang mucul dari zaman feudal. Bazaari adalah peniaga tradisional. Kalau di Malaysia mereka ini adalah peniaga-peniaga China yang memiliki jaringan kedai-kedai perniagaan. Bazaari muncul sebagai kelas ekonomi yang kuat kerana mereka memonopoli dan mengendalikan jual beli di Iran. Ketika gerakan anti-Shah dahulu kumpulan Bazaari ini telah menyokong Ayatolah Khomeini sehinggkan Iran menjadi lumpuh dan Ahmad Reza Pahlavi lari.

Kelas Bazaari ini juga memiliki pertalian yang amat kuat dengan struktur Shiah yang berpusat di Qum. Mereka memerlukan satu sama lain. Gulungan agamawan di Qum memerlukan sokongan ekonomi/duit kelas Bazaari. Kelas Bazaari memerlukan fatwa untuk ‘menghalalkan’ apa sahaja perniagaan mereka – termasuk pelacuran yang ditafsirkan sebagai ‘nikah sementara’.

Kelas peniaga kecil ini melihat perniagaan di bazar mereka terbantut dan kelas mereka tidak dapat berkembang. Pelancung tidak masuk. Permaidani mereka tidak terjual dan tidak dapat di eksport. Kelas Bazaari/komprador – yang bergantung perniagan dengan peniaga luar – kini melihat barangan untuk jualan amat susah untuk di impot atau diekspot kerana sekatan ekonomi.

Justeru amat jelas ada pertentangan kelas disini. Ada pertentangan kepentingan ekonomi. Kumpulan borjuis lama – borjuis nasional dan kelas komprador yang di wakili oleh Rafsanjani/ Mousavi sedang bertempur dengan kumpulan ekonomi kelas baru – kapitalis daulah/ state capitalism – yang diwakili oleh Ahmadinejad.

Justeru ini membuktikan bahawa apa yang berlaku di Iran sekarang tidak ada sangkut paut dengan Islam, dengan mazhab Shiah atau dengan agama. Krisis di Iran hari ini adalah pertentang kelas dan perebutan ekonomi.

Jangan kita lupa – ada lagi satu kumpulan – kumpulan monarki – saki baki dari penyokong Shah Ahmad Reza Pahlevi. Mereka ini kelas feudal yang sedang mengelabah seperti polong tidak bertuan. Tuannya – Reza Pahlavi anak Shah – kini tinggal di Cairo kerana telah menjadi menantu Anwar Sadat.

Kumpulan feudal kelas elit atasan ini bersarang di bahagian utara Tehran – kawasan ini samalah seperti Bukit Kenny di Kuala Lumpur atau di Country Height Kajang. Kumpulan ini berkumpul di bawah tv satelit yang dimiliki oleh Reza Pahlavi yang dipancar dari Cairo.

Kelas feudal dan elit atasan – kumpulan Gucci dan Louis Vuitton – ini tidak ada sangkut paut dengan demokrasi. Mereka ini lintah darat yang hidup senang lenang bershopping dihujung minggu di London dan Paris di zaman Shah dahulu. Mereka ini sama dengan kaum keluarga anak beranak kroni-kroni Mahathir Muhamad. Mereka melihat ‘gaya hidup’ mereka menjadi kacau bilau sesudah berlakunya revolusi tahun 1979.

Jadi siapakah pula yang berdemo di jalan raya yang membantah keputusan pilihanraya?

Semua yang kepentingan ekonomi dan gaya hidup mereka tidak selari dengan dasar Ahmadinejad sedang turun bermandi darah di jalan raya. Mereka bersatu dibawah bendera dan slogan – Undur-Undur Ahmadinejad. Ini sama seperti slogan dizaman Reformasi (1998) ketika rakyat satu Malaysia berdemo untuk menjatuhkan Mahathir Muhamad.

Awas ! Dari semua kumpulan ekonomi ini adalah lagi satu kumpulan. Ini kumpulan anak-anak muda yang tidak memiliki kepentingan ekonomi atau kelas. Mereka inilah yang gugur di tembak oleh peluru Basij. Mereka inilah yang sedang bertempur dengan tentera dan polis rusuhan.

Anak- anak muda ini datang dari semua kelas. Mereka adalah kaum pelajar muda. Mereka juga adalah ‘penanam anggor’ yang tidak memiliki kerja dan masa depan. Mereka melihat Ahmadinejad sebagai musuh yang menggangu gugat gaya kehidupan muda mereka. Mereka adalah Mat Rock dan Mat Kool dari utara Tehran. Mereka juga adalah Mat Rempit dari kawasan miskin wilayah selatan Tehran.

Mereka sedang mendobrak segala nilai-nilai kolot yang menyusahkan kehidupan harian mereka. Mereka adalah generasi Myspace, Facebook dan Friendster. Ibu bapa mereka adalah Siti Internet dan Lebai Google. Bapak saudara mereka adalah Blogspot Dot Com. Mereka adalah pembuat filem di YouTube. Mereka adalah wartawan Sms dan Twitter. Mereka bermazhab Ali Shahriati. Mereka menganuti fahaman Mao, Lenin, Bakunin dan Che.

Seperti biasa anak-anak muda inilah yang menjadi barisan hadapan untuk membawa perubahan. Mereka jugalah yang sedang bermandi darah membuka harapan baru untuk Iran. Mereka ingin membebaskan Iran dari theocracy yang kolot.

Hakikatnya dasar Ahamadinejad dan dasar Mousavi tidak ada bezanya. Dasar ini ingin mentuakan naluri muda mereka. Ditahap sejarah pada June 2009 ini – anak-anak muda ini sedang berpayung dibawah lambang Mousavi kerana pekikan perjuangan yang dilaungkan oleh Mousavi.

Untuk sementara waktu ini Ahmadinejad adalah Presiden Iran yang terbukti telah menang dalam pilihanraya. Ahmadinejad akan terus berkuasa. Amerika Syarikat dibawah Barack Obama – untuk kepentingan berjangka panjang – tidak akan menggugat Iran.

Waspada! Iran memiliki tradisi perjuangan dan tamadun yang lama. Iran memiliki tradisi Tudeh yang memimpin kaum buruh di industri minyak. Iran memiliki tradisi Fedayeen Al-Khalaq. Iran memiliki tradisi Mujahideen Al-Khalaq. Iran memiliki tradisi tempur Shiah yang dinobatkan sebagai Islam Kiri oleh Ali Shariati. Tiga kumpulan inilah penyusun dan penjana awal revolusi Iran 1979 dahulu sebelum di ‘hijack’ oleh Ayatollah Khomenei yang dilihat oleh kuasa Anglo-Amerika pada ketika itu sebagai kuda yang lebih selamat.

Akhirnya anak-anak muda ini akan mengundur dan menilai kembali garis perjuangan mereka. Yakinlah dalam masa yang tidak lama akan muncul kembali satu pertempuran yang lebih tersusun. Anak-anak muda dimana sahaja didalam dunia ini akan berkumpul apabila terdengar pekikan perjuangan. Ini adalah sifat dan naluri anak muda. Anak –anak muda di Iran memiliki waktu untuk menunggu. TT – (tulisan ini boleh diambil untuk membuat yang baik)

Artikel ini diambil dari

Artikel ini dipetik dari


Lupakan kedaulatan Sultan Perak. Lupakan kedaulatan Raja-Raja. Semua ini adalah ciput. Semua kedaulatan ini tidak akan diambil kira dalam agenda globalisasi yang sedang berjalan hari ini. Semua Tan Seri, Tan Tun, Mak Datin , Pak Haji, Ayatollah, Padri, Sami, Rabbai atau apa sahaja bentuk manusia semuanya menjadi ciput dalam agenda baru yang sedang berjalan hari ini.

Tuhan baru telah muncul. Tuhan yang dibawa oleh sistem kapitalis. Tidak percaya? Sila renung dan periksa diri sendiri. Sistem ekonomi kapitalis telah menjadikan manusia berebut-rebut untuk mengumpul harta. Sistem ekonomi kapitalis telah melahirkan satu budaya dimana umat manusia dalam dunia ini terlupa dan terlalai bahawa kita hanyalsh bertransit di atas muka bumi ini.

Budaya kapitalis ini telah mencakupi semua aspek kehidupan manusia. Manusia moden kurun ke 21 telah dilalaikan untuk menjadi binatang konsumer yang mengguna dan mengumpulkan pelbagai ‘biji-biji saga’ dan barangan kodi untuk mainan. Manusia moden telah menjadi seperti Toyol yang asyik bermain dengan biji-biji saga hingga terlupa bahawa tujuan hidup ini adalah untuk mengenal diri sendiri dan melakukan kebaikan.

Sistem kapitalis telah membawa satu budaya dimana ianya mengasak, meraba dan merangsang sifat jahat dalam diri manusia. Hukum induk ekonomi kapitalis – keuntungan maksima – telah melupuskan nilai baik yang sedia wujud dalam diri manusia.

Justeru apakah kita hairan apabila kita terbaca dalam akhbar bagaimana pembekal susu tepong di Tanah Besar China telah membubuh malamin dalam tepong untuk dijual sebagai susu. Mereka menjual susu ini bukan kepada orang Sweden tetapi kepada bayi-bayi China sanak saudara mereka sendiri.

Justeru apakah kita hairan apabila kita membaca berita di Sepanyol dan Portugal ada pembekal minyak zaiton telah membubuh minyak hitam yang sudah terpakai untuk dijual sebagai campuran minyak zaiton.

Justeru apakah kita hairan apabila membaca bagaimana kontrektor Bumiputera yang bersunat dan selalu naik umrah telah membuat bangunan sekolah, bilik makmal dan hospital dengan menggunakan barangan tidak berkualiti dan akhirnya bangunan-bangunan ini runtuh rantah.

Semua ini dilakukan kerana mereka hidup mengikut hukum dan budaya kapitalisma. Keuntungan maksima adalah tuhan baru yang sedang disembah. Selama 30 tahun kebelakangan ini tuhan baru ini telah muncul dimerata pelusuk dunia. Tuhan ini akan berada dimana sahaja wujudnya sistem ekonomi kapitalis termasuk di Malaysia.

Tiga puluh tahun dahulu – air, api, jalan raya, hospital, bank, sekolah, universiti, talipon, radio, tv – semua ini adalah milik kita bersama. Semua ini adalah hak milik negara bermakna hak milik orang ramai. Tiba-tiba harta orang ramai ini diswastakan.

Siapa sebenarnya yang menelorkan dan mencadangkan dasar penswastaan ini. Dasar ini dimunculkan oleh pemikir kabal-kabal Illuminati. Para pemikir dari pelbagai ‘think tank’ ini yang telah mengajukan agenda penswastaan kepada Bank Dunia dan IMF sebagai satu usaha untuk apa yang mereka panggil – cara untuk memperbaiki dan mengembangkan ekonomi di negara-negara sedang membangun.

IMF dan Bank Dunia menjadikan penswastaan ini sebagai dasar untuk diterima pakai. Negara Dunia Ketiga yang miskin jika ingin meminjam dana dari bank-bank antarabangsa diwajibkan menjalankan dasar penswastaan. Penswataan bermakna menjualkan harta hak milik orang ramai kepada kaum kapitalis antrabangsa.

Di belakang dasar penswastaan ini ialah para banker dari kabal Illuminati. Para banker yang telah mengumpulkan berbilon kertas dolar memerlukan pasarana pelaboran baru. Hukum ekonomi kapitalis mewajibkan kaum pemodal terus mencari pasaran baru. Di Eropah Barat pasaran telah tepu. Maka kabal Illuminati telah mengarahkan Bank Dunia dan IMF memaksa dibuka seluas mungkin pasaran di negara Dunia Ketiga. Hasilnya kita melihat harta negara kita –air, talipon, tv, jalan raya, hospital, bangunan, bank – semuanya bertukar tangan.

Apabila Perang Dingin tamat lihat apa yang telah terjadi kepada Russia dan Eropah Timur. Negara-negara ini sedang mengamalkan sistem ekonomi sosialis telah diasak dan di serang. Russia telah dipecah-pecahkan. Perang telah dicetuskan di Bosnia, di Kosovo, di Montenegro dan di Chechen – semua ini adalah perancangan licik untuk memaksa harta rakyat di Eropah Timur di jual kepada kaum pemodal antrabangsa.

Sesudah dasar penswastaan di terima pakai – kita mula terdengar apa yang dikatakan – Dunia Tanpa Sempadan. Dunia tanpa sempadan ini ialah agenda Illiminati untuk melupuskan kedaulatan negara. Dunia tanpa sempadan bukan bererti orang Afrika boleh senang-senang masuk ke Eropah. Dunia tanpa sempadan bukan bererti buruh rakyat Pakistan boleh masuk ke Jepun untuk mencari kerja.

Tanpa sempadan hanyalah untuk duit modal masuk ke mana sahaja untuk mencari untung. Modal antarabangsa ini tidak boleh diganggu gugat ketika modal ini sedang mencari keuntungan maksima dimana sahaja dalam dunia ini. Dunia tanpa sempadan ialah untuk para pelaboran antarbangsa bermain ‘tikam dan berjudi’ di pasaran saham negara-negara Dunia Ketiga. Lihat apa yang berlaku di Asia Tenggara pada tahun 1997 dahulu. Lihat bagaimana kaum kapitalis antarabangsa telah menerbus masuk dan menekan negara-negara Asia Tenggara dan akhirnya banyak hospital kita terjual, talipon kita terjual, sistem pendidikan kita terjual.

Lihat Tesco, Carrefour, Giant, Court Mamoth, AIA, ING, Ikea, Burger King, MacDogal, Shell, Esso – semua ini adalah milik pemodal antarabangsa. Semua ini dipaksakan ke atas pasaran kita melalui perjanjian World Trade Organisation (WTO). WTO memaksa negara Dunia Ketiga membuka pasaran untuk pemodal antarabangsa masuk mencari untung.

Perjanjian WTO ini adalah perjanjian terbuka yang berat sebelah – sama seperti perjanjian-perjanjian East India Company yang telah dibuat oleh Sultan Johor dengan Raffles pada tahun 1819 dahulu. Sama seperti perjanjian Sultan Kedah dengan Francis Light pada tahun 1786. Sama seperti Perjanjian Pangkor 1874 yang akhirnya Tanah Melayu jatuh ke tangan British.

Dari zaman penjajah dahulu cita-cita kaum pemodal kapitalis ini untuk memiliki dunia ini tidak pernah padam-padam. Cita-cita kaum pemodal antarabangsa ini untuk menjadikan umat manusia sebagai hamba adalah manifesto New World Order. Kabal-kabal Illuminati saban hari merancang. Hari ini semua strateji telah di rancang. Semua telah di susun. Para banker di belakang Iluminati sedang dalam persediaan akhir untuk melahirkan apa yang mereka katakan – New World Order atau Dunia Bentuk Baru.

Lihatlah nanti bagaimana kabal-kabal Illuminati ini akan memaksa Malaysia untuk menanda tangani Free Trade Agreement. Dalam perjanjian ini tidak ada yang ‘free’. FTA ini akan memaska kita terus membuka semua pasaran negara kita untuk kaum pemodal antarabanga mencari keuntungan maksima.

New World Order ini adalah dunia baru dimana kedaulatan negara tidak wujud lagi. Rancangan NOW ini sedang diatur – Canada, Amerika dan Mexico telah disatukan – kemudian seluruh Selatan Amerika akan dijerut masuk. Eropah sedang bersatu – ini akan menjerut masuk Afrika dan Timur Tengah. Asia akan dikepali oleh Jepun yang akan menjerut semua negara di Asia.

Lihat sekarang telah wujud Asean dan Apec untuk Asia , African Union untuk Afrika dan Union of South American Nations untuk Amerika Latin. Semua ini adalah perancangan Illuminati. Semua ini direstui oleh kaum pemodal antarabangsa. Rancangan akhir mereka ialah untuk memastikan semua rakyat dunia ini akan tunduk kepada kuasa mereka.

Dalam masa yang tidak lama lagi manusia akan di cap dengan microchip. Tak percaya? Bukankah idea ini telah terkeluar dari mulut seorang pegawai polis Malaysia tiga tahun dahulu dan berita ini telah dilaporkan dalam Utusan Malaysia. Microchip ini untuk bayi yang baru lahir – atas alasan untuk mengekori penjahat.

Tetapi hakikatnya microchip ini ialah untuk mengawal semua umat manusia agar tunduk kepada sistem ekonomi kapitalis. Umat manusia akan taat bekerja dari jam 9 hingga 5 – bercuti Sabtu Ahad. Jika sopan dan tekun mereka akan dapat gaji untuk membeli kondo, ipod, kancil, kasut Prada, beg Luis Vuitton dan pelbagai jenis ‘biji-biji saga’ yang dijanjikan. Sila baca 1984 oleh George Orwell dan tonton filem Metropolis oleh Fritz Lang.

Ini bukan satu dongeng konspirasi. Ini bukan plot sebuah novel yang belum siap. Ini adalah hakikat politik dunia hari ini. Memahami politik dunia hari ini amat penting. Jika kita gagal untuk memahami garis dan strateji Illuminati maka kita tidak akan melawan. Jika tidak bangun melawan maka umat manusia dalam dunia ini akan dijadikan hamba abdi. (TT)

Tiada apa yang berguna untuk dibaca dalam laman web log ini. Ia hanya platform untuk aku melayari laman orang lain dan membuat komen.



Kenapa aku tak suka perhimpunan agung PKMB (Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu?


Menambah kesesakan lalulintas di sekitar KL dan kawasan sekitar yang memang dah sedia sesak. Kambin tul la… Aku tau le PDDC (Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra) tu bangunan diorg. Pi la kat PPAP (Pusat Persidangan Antarabangsa Putrajaya).. bayar sewa kat sana.. kan banyak duit. Orang kampung kelubi nak jugak berjamaah kat masjid putrajaya. Orang sungai benut pun nak merasa naik bot kat tasik tu. Balik-balik the mall, klcc… nak gak makcik senah gi alamanda.


Sooooh… sooh… lein kali jangan buat kat KL la weih…