Sunday, May 8, 2011


--Part II--

In the first part of his interview last week, Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia talked about the Speaker's impartiality and dealing with accusation of bias.

In this part two, he discusses improvement for Malaysia's parliament, and the realities of local parliamentary and political culture.

The Nut Graph:
In line with other advanced parliamentary systems, what about giving greater recognition to the role of a parliamentary opposition by having the SO allot more time for opposition and private members’ bills and motions, and by having a shadow cabinet system?

Pandikar Amin:
First and foremost, there must be an understanding and mutual respect between opposition and the government. In Britain, the official name of the opposition is Her Majesty’s Opposition party. In our case, the SO only gives recognition to the ketua pembangkang, and he [or she] must be given an office and an allowance for that position.
Assuming the opposition MPs here want the kind of recognition for the opposition as in the UK, why don’t they start moving in that direction by naming a shadow cabinet? By doing so, the people would know what they have to offer. That would be a good start towards the right direction. But [Pakatan] can’t even name a shadow cabinet. [Editor’s note: PR have only named ministerial committees comprising an MP from each of its member parties.]

The Nut Graph:
Their counter-argument is that the parliamentary system here doesn’t formally recognise a shadow cabinet the way other parliaments do, nor are MPs provided with resources and research staff to perform that role.
Pandikar Amin:

In the UK, they are able to do it because they have a real two-party system. Not all countries pay their shadow ministers. Only the opposition leader gets a special allowance. If they are serious about it, show it, do something about it. Like me, I’m serious about my position as speaker so I resigned from active politics. At least it is a sign that I’m trying to move in the right direction. From the opposition side, what have they done to indicate that they want to move in that direction?
If you want parliamentary reform, show it. If a shadow cabinet is what the opposition wants, why didn’t they raise a motion to debate it? They could ask the government to consider it, that if they can name their shadow cabinet, will the government also provide resources and other privileges? Nobody raised it. They could have raised it, if it is good for the people. And if the government doesn’t respond, it will be blamed. They should use parliament to raise things that are good for reforms. I don’t mind if they quarrel about good things, instead of attacking the Speaker's credibility.

The Nut Graph:
What about allotting more time for opposition and private member’s bills and motions, as done in the UK parliament?
Pandikar Amin:

That’s what I’m saying - if the government and the opposition can work together, of course it can be done. In the British system for example, there is a parlimentary convention called “pairing”. When one member of the government is absent and unable to vote, their “pair” from the opposition will also be absent, so that nobody will be caught with their pants down so to speak.
Here, there is none of this. Here, the opposition will be observing the government bench and if the government numbers are not enough, then the opposition will ask for a division - [ask the Speaker  for whatever motion debated at that point in time to be voted]. The government almost lost the 2010 Budget because of such tactics. So in order for the government to trust the opposition, parliament must be like gentlemen’s club. It’s like playing golf, players must respect each other and abide by the rules of the game. Do you see anybody on either side of the divide trying to move in that direction? No one. What they do is ridicule each other, every day, every morning. Every opportunity the opposition has will be used to try to embarrass and ridicule the government or the ministers and vice versa. That’s their agenda.

The Nut Graph:
How do you rate BN MPs and backbenchers?

Pandikar Amin:

In any parliament you will have colourful characters. When I compare our parliament with Britain’s, I compare our current Dewan with the House of Commons 60 or 70 years ago.  They are far more advanced. But to head in that direction, we must start now. And the MPs must behave towards that. As it is, we are more headed towards Taiwan’s parliament.

The Nut Graph:
How independent is our Parliament when we have a minister to oversee it?

Pandikar Amin:
Some people say it is not supposed to be like that. It is true. In all Commonwealth countries that I know of, there is no Parliaments that have a minister to oversee it. But I look at it from a positive point of view. When I was a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, ministers took turns to look after parliamentary affairs on a weekly basis. This was under [Tun Dr] Mahathir [Mohamad]. But [Tun] Abdullah [Badawi] decided to put [Datuk Seri] Nazri [Aziz] in charge as an overseer. So Nazri is like a bridge between the executive and parliament. And I look at it positively because it makes my work easier. Anything I want the executive to know, I don’t have to deal with the PM’s office because there is a minister here. But there are others who look at it critically, why should there be a minister in charge when there is already a Speaker? Shouldn’t the Speaker be running parliament’s affairs? But this is part of democracy, there is no one perfect formula. In the House of Commons, it’s unheard of to have a minister in charge of parliament. But Malaysia has its own mould and style of democracy.

The Nut Graph:
But isn’t perception also important, Parliament must be seen to be independent?

Pandikar Amin:
Of course it is. But perception is still a perception. Maybe there will be a new speaker who might not want this. Perception is always open to challenge. Sometimes it is just the wrong perception.
The Nut Graph:

Besides the issue of a minister in charge of Parliament, some MPs have said they feel the executive is too powerful in Parliament, and dominates the law-making process. Do you agree, and is this healthy?

Pandikar Amin;
What is parliament all about? Parliament function that way. Democracy is like that. The reason political parties fight so hard in elections are to get the big numbers of MPs, to be able to implement what they want  for the good of the people.
But, in some other countries, like Australia, [where the government]  has a small  majority - only by two or three seats, you don’t hear any commotion or anything about a vote of no-confidence in their parliament. The reason being that their political culture is this: after elections, no matter what, whether they have a big majority or a small majority, the decision of the masses is respected. Politicking ends. There is a new politics in parliament. This is something we here still don’t understand, with due respect to all our MPs. Neither the government side nor the opposition seem to understand that politics must end at the end of elections. A new politics must come in operation when you sit in parliament. You must behave as parliamentarian. This is another challenge I have – trying to instill parliamentary understanding and behaviour into the minds of MPs.
So I don’t think it’s about whether the executive is too powerful or not, but whether MPs understand parliamentary politics and whether they respect the system.

The Nut Graph:
With regards to the law-making process, the SO provide for standing and select committees to monitor government and debate bills. Is our Parliament ready for this?

Pandikar Amin:
Our system is such that we deal with everything in the Chambers as a Majlis or as a committee.  The ministries are the ones that see to all the details of sponsoring a bill for their respective ministries, then it goes to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the drafting of the bills, and then it goes to the cabinet which will decide on it. This has been our practice.
I personally feel that having committees will be good for the Speaker because then all those heated arguments can be done at the committee stage. Only the final decision will be made in the House.
But we must be practical. Having committees mean that MPs must be here in Parliament to attend meetings the whole year round.  Not all MPs may be able to attend and if you don’t have a quorum, you can’t do anything. Even the House Committee that I chair now and then has trouble finding quorum. How will we implement the committee system year-round when our political culture is for MPs to turun padang, attend ceramah, kenduri kahwin? If you want to do this, you have to forgo the turun padang culture. And yet, we still have constituents who complain that they never see their wakil rakyat turun padang.

The Nut Graph:
Would the executive be reluctant to have a committee system for bills because it might mean they can’t push laws through as quickly as they’d like?

Pandikar Amin:
I don’t see the reasons why the executive shouldn’t be keen. It will be easier for their ministers because the pressure is then on the civil service officers. But it will always be back to the issue of trust between the government and opposition and our political culture of turun padang.

The Nut Graph:
You’ve mentioned that the law must first provide for the Speaker to be impartial, such as in funding and appointment of staff. But the law as it is, doesn’t stop you from making impartial decisions.

Pandikar Amin:
There is no such law. I’m not the government, I can’t make such law. It must be the executive who says, “We want to have an independent Speaker’s office. So therefore the budget must not come from the consolidated fund, it must be from a separate fund”. And all the officers in parliament must be appointed separately, like the police or army, they have their own system of recruitment.  Provide that, give that to whoever sits in the speaker’s chair. So how can you blame me when that is the system that has always been there. I can't change the system alone without the government's backing.

The Nut Graph:
In one word, describe your job as speaker:

Pandikar Amin:
Dilemma. Always in a dilemma. Whatever I do is perceived as not right.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011


A PARLIAMENT unaccustomed to a large and vibrant opposition bench has proven ahallenging for Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia. Often, he is the target of criticism alleging his bias towards the executive.

In the first part of an interview with The Nut Graph at his office in Parliament on 6 April 2011, Pandikar Amin talks about how he weighs his decisions as speaker and how he views the role.

The Nut Graph:

What is the most difficult challenge being Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat?

Pandikar Amin:

When I excercised my discretion which I really think it is for the benefit of the people and for the good of Parliment, and yet my sincerity is doubted by the parlimentarians who have their own personal views and agendas.

The Nut Graph:

How do you deal with it?

Pandikar Amin:

I just have to be very patient. If the situation gets out of hand and I run out of patience, then I would take stern actions. That is when a few of them got themselves suspended from the sittings of the House.

The Nut Graph:

Why should differences of opinion be seen as a challenge against the Speaker?

Pandikar Amin:

Of course it is a challenge if neither sides respect each other's opinion. Having said that you also have to look at the differences in the background of being a Speaker in the Malaysian Parliament and a Speaker in the [British] House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons is a position that has been there for hundreds of years. It evolved [out of] the differences of opinion between the monarchy and the masses. The position of the Speaker in the UK Parliament is an institution by itself which everyone respects, including the government.

It is not so in our case. For instance, the budget for running Parliament doesn’t come from a special fund. It is from the consolidated fund, under the Finance Ministry. The appointment of officers in Parliament is not by the Speaker as an independent body, they are still appointed by the Public Service Commission.

In England, if a Speaker stands for election, no political party will put a candidate [against the Speaker], he will win automatically, because the view is that the Speaker is running [in the election] as the Speaker of Parliament. Once [we have] this kind of platform, it is conducive for the Speaker to make decisions,  like the Speaker of the House of Commons.

What I want is for MPs to be practical. I have already made concessions as far as I am concerned. I was a very active politician. I was the Ketua Umno Bahagian in Kota Marudu. After I was appointed as Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, I resigned from all my political posts in UMNO. To me, that is a sincere gesture. What I want from all MPs is to show me something visible that they are doing something to uplift the image of our parliament to what we aspire it to be.

But what I get is just the negative. I’ll give you an example. From the word “go” in 2008, SO 18 is being abused by the opposition. They used it for votes of no-confidence against the government. [Editor’s note: SO 18 allows an MP to raise a an emergency motion to discuss a matter of public importance, but this may be refused by the Speaker if the Speaker finds it is not “definite, urgent and of public importance”]. This is blatant abuse of the rules.

If MPs want to object to a decision you’ve made, they have to do it by way of a substantive motion under SO 43 requiring three days’ notice. Has that ever happened in our Dewan?

Any challenge must be done according to the SO. If members of parliament are not satisfied with the ruling of the Speaker, the proper way is not to argue there and then. If you look at SO 43, it says that once a decision has been made by the Speaker, the House cannot review it. Nobody can appeal against it or ask the Speaker to reconsider, because it just cannot be done under SO 43. It can only be done by an independent motion. But here, no. Once I make a ruling, they will scream and say that I am biased, that I’m being used by the executive. That kind of behaviour by itself is also against the SO.

The Nut Graph:

How many times has such a motion challenging the Speaker’s decisions been raised in our Parliament? The picture we get is that such motions are never allowed and that the Speaker therefore, cannot be challenged.

Pandikar Amin:

To my knowledge, a few have been raised. It has happened before. Under me, there was one such motion by Jelutong (Jeff Ooi Chuan Aun-DAP). He was not satisfied with one of my rulings so I advised him to bring a motion. So he brought the motion and It was put it in the order paper on the 15.12.2010

But they always complain that it is pointless to bring a motion because it will never come to light, meaning it will never be debated. Because the government’s agenda is always discussed first in every session. Now, that is also not my fault because SO 15 says that is how it should be done. The government’s agenda must be put first before the agenda of other MPs. That’s the rules.

Can you see my dilemma? If for instance, I allow a substantive motion from the opposition, and it gets discussed and then the House vote on it, the government will win because it has the numbers. So what is the point? I will then be accused again and the government will be accused of arm-twisting the minority because they have the numbers. There’s a quote from a Canadian writer that “the government will always have its way and the opposition will have its say”. That’s just the way it is.

So Jelutong brought the motion, it was put in the order paper, but until now the House has not come to it yet because every session it is the government’s agenda that is discussed first. That is the rule in the SO and the MPs know it and they should not accuse me of being biased. Unless the rules are amended, there is nothing I can do about it. That’s what I’m saying, to have a very fair Speaker, you must provide the platform for him to act accordingly.

Let me ask this question. Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is governing Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan. Are their legislative assembly speakers behaving more fairly than me? Are they behaving like the Speaker of the House of Commons? So start making comparisons. Don't just perceive that everything I do is pro-government.

The Nut Graph:

Do you think there is a need for check and balance on the Speaker?

Pandikar Amin:

The speaker has to follow the procedures in the SO.

As an example, if you want to compare with the House of Commons. In the UK, the issues to be raised during question time, like our every morning question time, the Private Notice Question (P.N.Q) are first discussed by both the opposition and government and then they will inform the Speaker. But in our case, in accordance with our SO, all questions are pre-determined. The MPs who want to ask questions have to give two weeks’ notice so that the government ministers will have time to gather the necessary answers. The questions are all laid out in the order paper. So we practice parliamentary democracy, but our procedures differ.

If PR comes to power, will they change the SO immediately to have a really independent speaker? If they really do that, they might face the risk of being unable to operate as a government because the speaker will have his own mind and act in accordance with what he thinks. If that is what they intend to do, why don’t they start practicing it in their states?

The Nut Graph:

What factors do you weigh when making a decision that involves your discretionary powers?

Pandikar Amin:

Whenever a motion comes before  me – I seek all the information from relevant ministries and authorities. From there I form my opinion. To give credit to the prime minister and the chief whip, the deputy prime minister, they never get involved. I allowed, under SO 18(1), motions to debate the strike by fishermen, the rising price of rice and the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide and also the [Genting Sempah] bus crash. These things are urgent and I also want the government to be responsible and answerable.

But the opposition are very fond of reacting unreasonably if I reject their motions. They will immediately hold press conference outside the Chamber to complain about my decision. By doing so they’ve done their job because the matter will be publicised, and they will go back to their constituency and say hey, I’ve raised it already in parliament but what to do, the Speaker did not allow it because he is biased.

[But look at the motions brought]. There was a commotion over a road closure where [a few] people got injured, and the Serdang MP brought it for debate under SO 18(1). If I were to allow that, then I would have to allow every fight that breaks out to be debated in Parliament. Then there was a motion to discuss a collapsed bridge in Perak where a few students died. But the deputy prime minister had already gone there, the problem was already being attended to. If I were to allow that motion, I would have to allow motions on all sorts of other things. Now, I’ve just received another motion to debate the death of a seven-year-old boy under his religious teacher’s care. If I allow this, would I then have to allow every case of child abuse or death in the country to be debated?

The Nut Graph:

Do you try to ensure that your decision to allow or not allow motions is not perceived as biased?

Pandikar Amin:

There is no way I can ensure that it’s not perceived as such. You think some of these ministers are happy with decisions I make, when I allow supplementary questions from opposition members who are hard-hitting? Even BN ministers are not happy with me. As speaker I can choose anyone to ask a supplementary question. I could pick an MP whom I know is not hard-hitting. There was once a parliamentary question directed at the prime minister. Many MPs stood up to ask a supplementary question. I could have called a weaker MP but I called Bukit Gelugor (Karpal Singh-DAP) because to me, I am giving opportunity to the government to give explanation. By asking those I know who are well-versed in the issue from the opposition, by letting them pose the question to the minister, what I am doing is giving the government the opportunity to give a good explanation.

The Nut Graph:

The record shows that most opposition motions are rejected.

Pandikar Amin:

There are also motions by the backbenchers which I have rejected because of SO 15 - that the government’s agenda must be dealt with first. But they don’t highlight it or hold a press conference to complain about it. Even government's backbenchers face the same thing – their motions never see the light of day because they get pushed down the list on the order paper – that opposition MPs complain of.

There is another thing I’m doing. The way questions in the order paper are arranged. There is nothing in the SO that says that I have to arrange parliamentary questions in a certain way. But I order it in such a way that opposition and government MPs can take turns in asking their questions. First, a question by a BN MP, followed by a question from an opposition MP. I do the same with supplementary questions. So, I’m already doing something positive - a signal to parliamentarians, that I am doing something, departing a little from our normal style of Malaysian politics. So they must also try to do something positive. Instead they always belittle me and abuse the rules, and at the same time portray to the public that they are right.

The Nut Graph:

On your first day as speaker, you didn’t allow MPs to ask any supplementary questions, citing “time constraints”. But aren’t supplementary questions an important way for MPs to question and scrutinise the government on its performance and policies?

Pandikar Amin:

Under our SO 24(3) – the speaker may allow not more than three supplementary questions. The text says “may”, not “shall”. This is a matter of interpretation. [Editor’s note: Under SO 99, the Speaker’s interpretation of the rules is final.]

On that day, at the time in question, there had been a commotion going on for almost one hour, all because Bukit Gelugor took issue with [how some MPs did not raise their hands properly when they were sworn in]. We had not yet even started the meeting. When we finally did, I wanted to be fair to all the other MPs who had posed parliamentary questions as listed on the order paper. Shouldn’t we also let others listed further down in the order paper have their questions answered? So that was the reason I didn’t allow supplementary question on that day. My decision is based on my interpretation of the SO which states that I “may” allow up to three questions. Not “shall”. Even then, the government backbenchers stood up to complain against my decision. But it’s a decision I still stand by. If MPs are not satisfied, they can file a motion using SO 43, not by ridiculing me. [TNG favicon]

Saturday, April 30, 2011


1. Apabila berhadapan dengan kemuskilan atau masalah, PENDEKAR CAHAYA mengingatkan dirinya pada maksud tersirat kata-kata dan petua orang-orang yang terdahulu sebagai iktibar, teladan atau panduan untuk bertindak seterusnya.

2. Ada kata-kata orang dahulu yang berbunyi, "Kalau hendak menendang seekor anjing, pastikan dahulu bahawa anjing itu bukan dipunyai oleh seorang pembesar".

3. "Riuh salakan, tiada gigitan".

4. "Kalau hendak bergolek, goleklah, tapi jangan sampai luka".

5. "Keuntungan pejuang-pejuang bukan balasan atau imbuhan yang diperolehi serta merta tetapi tercatatnya nama di dalam lipatan sejarah yang dapat dibanggai oleh bangsa dan keturunannya".

6. "Di dalam keadaan yang dianggap berhadapan dengan kerugian, mungkin di situ juga terletaknya peluang keuntungan".

7. "Pihak yang menampilkan dirinya simpati atau perihatin, tidak semestinya akan menjadi regu yang ikhlas di dalam perjuangan dan sebaliknya pihak yang dianggap sebagai musuh rupanya sengaja berperanaan sedemikian untuk dapat membantu merealisasikan objektif perjuangan dengan lebih berkesan.

8. PENDEKAR CAHAYA telah lama menjelajah di gunung, laut, pantai, lurah dan lembah. Ada kalanya bersendirian dan ada kalanya berpasukan. Kesemuanya sama. Bersendirian atau berpasukan, ianya memerlukan pengorbanan dari semua yang berkenaan. Akan tetapi pengorbanan tidak sama tahapnya. Ada "hangat-hangat tahi ayam" dan ada pula yang "menyeluk pekesam sampai ke pangkal lengan". Dan tidak kurang juga bilangannya yang "mengadu domba".

9. SESUNGGUHNYA, PENDEKAR CAHAYA berpegang teguh kepada prinsip, "Jangan berjalan di hadapan, mungkin tiada yang akan ikut berjalan di belakang dan jangan berjalan di belakang, mungkin tiada yang akan mendahului berjalan di hadapan. Jalan seiringan sebagai teman-teman seperjalanan"

Wednesday, April 27, 2011


1. Dahulu, walaupun serba kekurangan, tiada menimba ilmu di menara gading, tidak banyak ilmu di dada, kurang pergaulan, tidak jauh perjalanan, namun mereka yang bergelar pemimpin atau yang beraspirasi menjadi pemimpin dapat menampilkan sikap, perangai dan daya fikir yang setimpal dengan kedudukan sebagai pemimpin atau bakal pemimpin.

2. Dahulu, walaupun ibu bapa buta huruf, namun mereka dihormati oleh anak-anak yang berpengajian tinggi. Anak-anak tidak tergamak atau berani menempelak atau mengaibkan ibu bapa dikhalayak ramai kalau pendapat atau pandangan mereka bercanggah. Anak-anak dengan rela mengalah, bukan kalah mempertahankan hujah tetapi berpegang pada suatu etika, "hormat" ibu bapa dan takut tulah. Tetapi, mereka yang bersikap sedemikian rupa, rata-rata berjaya di dalam perjuangan hidup mereka. Mungkin kah doa ikhlas ibu bapa yang tidak pernah terguris hatinya, yang sentiasa memohon pada yang Maha Esa supaya anak-anak mereka semporna hidupnya dikabul oleh Allah doa mereka?

3. Dahulu, demi kepentingan rakyat jelata, pemimpin-pemimpin pelbagai bangsa berunding, berpakat dan berkerjasama. Mereka mengenepikan kepentingan diri jauh sekali menuding jari. Sikap ikhlas itu berbaloi. Mereka telah dapat mengisi kemerdekaan negara dengan dasar dan polisi yang kejayaannya dapat kita nikmati bersama dizaman kita. Akan tetapi, pemimpin-pemimpin dizaman ini walaupun berbekal pelbagai pengalaman dan ilmu di dada, asyik bersengketa, menuding jari dengan tidak memperdulikan sasarannya. Apakah mungkin akibatnya kehancuran kejayaan yang sedia ada?

4. Ada bangsa minoriti di negara kita yang sanjung tinggi cara pentadbiran negara jiran, kononnya effisien, telus dan bertanggung jawab kepada kebajikan rakyatnya. Di sebaliknya, bangsa majoriti di negara jiran yang berkenaan tidak berpuas hati dengan parti pemerintah, sebab, kononnya walaupun negara mereka kaya, dipimpin pemimpin terkemuka di persada dunia, tetapi rakyatnya dikongkong tidak bebas bersuara dan sara hidup yang mahal membawa derita. Apakah ini sikap manusia yang sentiasa mencari sesuatu demi nafsu?

4. PENDEKAR CAHAYA telah hidup lama dan telah mengharungi hidup cara dahulu dan cara masa kini.

5. SESUNGGUHNYA, PENDEKAR CAHAYA berpegang pada cara hidup yang sederhana iaitu cara masa kini yang disulami dengan etika zaman dahulu.

Saturday, December 18, 2010


1. Yang benar tetap benar walaupun diputarbelitkan dengan apacara sekali pun.

2. Kebenaran itu tidak perlu untuk dijelaskan akan "kebenaraannya" kerana orang yang "lemah" sahaja yang tidak nampak dan rasa apa sebenarnya kebenaran.

3. Bagi yang "kuat" kebenaran bukan sahaja "dibenarkan" melalui hujah dan anggokkan semata, tetapi ianya perlu dipertahankan dengan "tindakan" yang sewajarnya.

4. Bagi pendusta pula, kebenaran bukan sahaja ditidakkan, malahan ianya dipesongkan dengan memberikan penjelasan dengan hujah-hujah yang jika diulang-ulang oleh sipendusta, dia sendiri akan mempercayai bahawa dustanya itu adalah kebenaran.

5. Pendusta unggul adalah syaitan. Yang menjadi mangsa dustaan syaitan adalah hamba-hamba yang "lemah". Hamba-hamba yang "kuat" tidak mudah untuk dipengaruhi oleh dakya dan pujuk rayu syaitan.

6. Syaitan itu ada kehebatannya tetapi kehebatannya dapat diatasi oleh "kebenaran".

7. Sesungguhnya, perjuangan Pendekar Chahaya berpijak diatas kebenaran.

Saturday, November 13, 2010


1. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA berpegang pada falsafah agama, "Tuntut lah ilmu sehingga ke Negara China!"

2. Ilmu adalah 'Chahaya'; "penyuluh hidup" dan 'penyelamat' di dunia dan di akhirat. Ianya, perlu dituntut, walau dimana dan dari siapa.

3. Pun demikian, ada pihak yang "ada agama" tetapi cuma berkeadaan "seadanya" - bermada-mada - seolah-olah mereka tahu segalanya; mengaibkan sesiapa sahaja - termasuk insan-insan yang telah berjasa. 

4. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA tertanya-tanya, "Apakah untung dan ruginya pada mereka yang "seadanya" ini, menuntut ilmu dan mendampingi orang yang mereka anggap "hina" tetapi sebenarnya adalah lebih "mulia" daripada mereka?"

"Sedar kah mereka bahawa, yang berjasa tetap berpahala; yang berbudi tetap diingati; yang berjuang tetap dijulang; yang ikhlas tetap dibalas; yang derhaka menemui bala; yang sabar akan diganjar; yang menipu akhirnya akan malu dan yang memfitnah akan merana hidupnya?".

5. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA menghayati maksud falsafah orang tua-tua, "Menuding dengan sebatang jari telunjuk kelain arah, empat batang jari-jari menunjuk pula ke badan kita".

6. Bijak Pandai pula senada, dan berkata, "Penuding jadi, mengaibkan diri"

Monday, November 8, 2010


1. Kekadang langkah PENDEKAR CHAHAYA sejuk, lesu dan kaku, angkara "musuh-musuh".

2. Seakan tiada "nyalah" pendorong untuk bangun walau selangka. Dalam keadaan sebegini, PENDEKAR CHAHAYA menyepi beratus malam dan hari -meneliti - bermuhasabah diri.

3. Ada pihak, dengan sinis, berkata, " Mungkin pengembaraan PENDEKAR CHAHAYA sudah berada dipenghujungnya, dimamah usia dan tenaga tua ".

4. Hati PENDEKAR CHAHAYA terguris mendengar kata-kata nista. Dia tidak menghalang sesiapa yang memartabatkan bangsa. Sebaliknya, dia tidak mahu dihadang, cuma atas alasan, dia mengganggu perjalanan mereka.

5. Pejuang tiada had usia dan tenaga. Semua, tidak kira "satus" dan "daya", diperlukan untuk bangkit memartabatkan bangsanya.

6. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA, bukan petualang dan penghadang kepada "cita-cita membara" kembara muda. Sebaliknya, dia adalah "printis jalan" dan "peneroka" yang telah dan akan membuka "mata minda" pengembara dari desa-desa untuk "bersaing" dengan "pengembara" di kota-kota.

7. Sesungguhnya PENDEKAR CHAHAYA , sekian lama, hidup "berkelana" dan tidak suka "beradu tenaga dan minda" dengan sesiapa - jauh sekali kembara muda didesanya - kecuali "penderhaka".

Wednesday, September 15, 2010


1. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA sentiasa membebaskan hatinya dari menyimpan perasaan benci.

2. Sewaktu bertempur dia ingat maksud kata-kata mutiara, "cintai musuh-musuh mu".

3. Dalam pada itu, PENDEKAR CHAHAYA tahu bahawa perbuatan memaafkan tidak bermakna dia menerima segalanya; dia tidak boleh menundukkan kepala, kerana dengan berbuat sedemikian dia akan terlepas pandang pada arah terletaknya impiannya.

4. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA menerima hakikat bahawa musuh-musuhnya sentiasa berwaspada untuk menguji ketangkasannya; menguji daya tahannya; menguji kebolehannya membuat tindakan-tindakan yang tepat. Pendek kata, tindakan musuh-musuh memaksanya untuk terus berjuang dan berjuang.

5. Sesungguhnya pengalaman dari setiap pertempuran mematangkan PENDEKAR CHAHAYA.

Saturday, September 11, 2010


1. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA selalu terdengar adanya pihak yang mencanangkan betapa pentingnya memperjuangkan nasib bangsa dan mereka menyeru semua untuk menjayakannya.

2. Untuk menggamit sokongan dan keyakinan terhadap perjuangan "murni" mereka, pihak-pihak tertentu ini juga mencanangkan bahawa mereka tidak akan memanfaatkan hasil perjuangan demi untuk kepentingan umum seperti pendirian dan perjuangan Ghandi dan Mandela.

3. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA kagum dan menghormati mereka yang mencontohi pendirian dan perjuangan seperti Ghandi dan Mandela, tetapi PENDEKAR CHAHAYA tidak yakin kepada individu atau mereka yang tidak mempunyai "sebarang keupayaan" untuk dapat menjayakan sesuatu atau sebarang objektif, TETAPI beria-ia mencanangkan "akan tidak menerima sebarang kepentingan dari hasil perjuangan". Bagi PENDEKAR CHAHAYA, perbuatan ini adalah seperti perbuatan pakar kaji cuaca yang menjanjikan sebuah kolam air jernih di pangkal pelangi pada mereka yang kehausan.

4. Sesungguhnya PENDEKAR CHAHAYA berpegang pada maksud kata-kata, "senang mengata susah memperkotakan".

Sunday, August 29, 2010


1. PENDEKAR CHAHAYA sering kali duduk sembang-sembang bersama dengan teman-teman seperjuangannya di tepi unggun api sambil minum Kopi Tenom atau Teh Tarik.

2. Berjam-jam lamanya mereka mencemuh dan mengkritik di antara satu dengan yang lain, tetapi tidur di dalam khemah yang sama pada setiap malam dengan melupai semua cemuhan dan kritikan yang "berterbangan" di antara mereka sebelumnya.

3. Ada kalanya, "pendatang" yang tidak "sepengalaman" dengan mereka menyertai kumpulan ini. Oleh kerana itu, dia cuma menampakkan kualiti keperibadiannya yang baik dan ada di antara ahli kumpulan ini yang menganggap bahawa ianya adalah guru.

4. Akan tetapi PENDEKAR CHAHAYA tidak membandingkan keperibadian/ketangkasan "pendatang" ini dengan teman-teman yang pernah berjuangan bersamanya di medan-medan pertempuran. Kehadiran "pendatang" ini diterima dengan baik, tetapi dia tidak akan dipercayai sepenuhnya sehingga PENDEKAR CHAHAYA mengetahui "kelemahannya".

5. Sesungguhnya PENDEKAR CHAHAYA tidak akan berperang tanpa mengetahui kekangan sekutunya.

Friday, August 27, 2010


1. Baru-baru ini penyelidik (Indraneil Das dan Alexander Haas, Universiti Hamburg) menemui sejenis katak di Taman Nasional Kubah Sarawak yang terkecil di Asia, Africa dan Europa. Saiz katak - berwarna merah-dan-oren - ini cuma sebesar biji kacang Pis (Peas). Lihat di sini (klik)
2. Katak ini ditemui bukan kerana mereka ternampak badannya dahulu tetapi terdengar suaranya yang unik berbanding dengan suara katak-katak yang lain yang terdapat di persekitaran kawasan tersebut.

3. Dalam konteks penemuan ini, "suara" nya yang nyaring [ jika dibandingkan dengan badannya yang amat kecil ] telah menyebabkan katak yang terkecil ini ditemui dan dikenal pasti spesisnya ( Microhylid ) yang kini diberikan nama Microhaylanepethicola.

4. Sehubungan dengan penemuan baru ini, PENDEKAR CHAHAYA terfikir bahawa suara yang kedengaran nyaring/bising itu tidak semestinya dicetuskan/berasal dari badan yang bersaiz besar atau bilangan yang ramai.

5. Sesungguhnya PENDEKAR CHAHAYA juga percaya bahawa sebesar-besar suara yang dicetuskan oleh badan yang kecil, lebih besar suara yang dicetuskan oleh badan yang besar.


Monday, August 23, 2010


1. Sesungguhnya, walaupun tidak berkelulusan "master", orang tua-tua dahulu pandai menyusun kata-kata yang menggamit (menarik perhatian) pendengar atau pembaca apabila menyampaikan sesuatu mesej seperti kata-kata sindiran.

2. Kata-kata sindiran adalah ayat-ayat yang menggunakan/mengandungi perkataan-perkataan yang pada "permukaannya" tidak disedari bahawa ianya mempunyai maksud yang mengaibkan individu yang disindir tetapi bagi mereka yang faham disebalik kata-kata sindiran itu, ianya cukup "pedas", menyusuk kalbu.

3. Umpamanya, jika sesaorang insan yang tidak mempunyai akhlak yang baik lantas menzahirkan kata-kata yang mengejek/memperkecil-kecialkan seorang individu yang mempunyai akhlak dan kedudukan yang sama taraf dengannya, individu yang berkenaan itu boleh lah membalas ejekan yang dilontar kepadanya dengan kata-kata sindiran seperti berikut:

(a) "Kata Periuk Belanga Hitam".

(b) "Kata Udang si Ketam Jadi Merah Apabila Terkena Panas".

4. Kebijaksanaan menggunakan kata-kata sindiran terdapat juga di kalangan bangsa-bangsa Barat (kulit putih). Misalnya, jika sesaorang itu ingin menyampaikan mesej kepada sesaorang yang diketahuinya sebagai individu yang hidupnya tidak sempurna (perfect) tetapi individu tersebut gemar mengaibkan atau mengkritik orang lain, maka, sesaorang yang berkenaan itu, jika ingin menyedarkan individu yang "nakal" itu dari perbuatannya yang tidak baik, maka boleh lah dia menyindir individu itu dengan kata-kata, "DO NOT THROW STONE IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE" ("JANGAN LEMPAR BATU JIKA ANDA TINGGAL DI RUMAH KACA").

5. Sehubungan dengan maksud kata-kata sindiran, "Jangan Lempar Batu Jika Anda Tinggal di Rumah Kaca", PENDEKAR CHAHAYA terfikir perkara-perkara berikut:

(a) Adakah "Aktivis" (Pengiat) di Alam Siber yang menyembunyaikan identiti sebenar mereka itu, tinggal di "Rumah Kaca?".

(b) Kalaupun mereka ini tidak tinggal di "Rumah Kaca", tetapi mereka "berhujah" di sebalik sesuatu "agenda" yang tersirat, tidakkah mereka ini terfikir bahawa apabila identiti mereka diketahui kelak, harapan mereka untuk menjayakan sesuatu objektif disebalik "hujah" yang seolah-olah mereka tidak berkepentingan, akhirnya akan berkecai juga., atau

(c) Mereka ini adalah "Aktivis" (Pengiat) upahan, atau

(d) Mereka ini adalah terdiri dari golongan individu pemalu yang cuma boleh menulis artikel-artikel yang baik apabila mereka menggunakan nama semaran, atau

(e) Mereka ini adalah terdiri dari golongan individu yang termasuk dalam maksud kata-kata, "Lempar Batu Sembunyi Tangan" atau

(e) Mereka ini adalah terdiri dari golongan individu yang gemar dengan permainan kanak-kanak "Cari Dan Sembunyi" (Hide and Seek).

6. Seperti lazimnya pada setiap perkara, kata-kata sindiran juga "berlawanan". Contohnya, kalau sesaorang individu yang "daif" mengkritik individu yang "arif", maka kata-kata sindirannya ialah, "Anjing Menyalak Bukit". Kalau sesaorang individu yang hodoh dan papa ingin berpacaran/berpasangan dengan sesaorang individu yang cantik dan kaya, dan dia sentiasa ingat dan merindui si cantik dan kaya itu, maka kata-kata sindirannya ialah, "Punggok Rindukan Bulan".

7. Sesungguhnya, apapun, PENDEKAR CHAHAYA tetap berpegang pada maksud kata-kata sindiran Orang Barat, "Honesty Is The Best Policy" (Keikhlasan Adalah Polisi Yang Sebaik-Baiknya".

Friday, August 20, 2010


1. Rata-rata masyarakat di dalam negara ini faham/tahu maksud kata-kata mutiara seperti:

a) Bersatu kita teguh bercerai kita roboh/runtuh

b) Satu batang lidi kelapa senang dipatah-patahkan
tetapi seratus batang lidi kelapa yang diikat bersama
tidak mudah untuk dipatah-patahkan


2. Melayu tidak dapat bersatupadu

3. Cina tidak dapat bersatupadu

4. Bangsa India tidak dapat bersatupadu

5. KadazanDusun tidak dapat bersatupadu

6. Bajau tidak dapat bersatupadu

7. Iranun tidak dapat bersatupadu

8. Bangsa-bangsa lain juga tidak dapat bersatupadu

9. Tetapi, kebelakangan ini, Pendekar Chahaya terdengar bahawa suatu "Wadah Baru" yang boleh menyatupadukan sesuatu bangsa telah ditemui.

10. Sesungguhnya, selama ini Pendekar Chahaya mengidam-idamkan penemuan seperti ini. Tahniah kepada mereka yang berkenaan!

11. Kerana takut memberi tafsiran yang salah, maka, Pendekar Chahaya tertanya-tanya. Apa agaknya caranya?

12. Atau, apakah mungkin "Wadah Baru" ini adalah seperti "virus" komputer - perosak kepada sistem "filing" yang sedia teratur dan tersusun dengan rapi?

Thursday, August 19, 2010


1. Pendekar Chahaya tidak serik dan gerun untuk menjayakan gagasan perjuangan bangsa yang telah digarispandunya.

2. Sebagai pejuang, Pendekar Chahaya tidak takut dicabar dan kecundang di tangan musuh. Pantang bagi seorang Pendekar Chahaya berundur dari perjuangan yang belum selesai dan membiarkan tanggungjawab berat kepada pendekar-pendekar yang belum teruji ketangkasannya.

3. "Masa depan Bangsa" tidak boleh dipandang ringan dan digunakan sebagai "pentas" menguji "bakat" pendekar-pendekar yang gopoh-gapah. Tersilap langkah, maruah bangsa akan tercemar atau tergadai dan tidak dapat ditebus buat selama-lamanya. Bagi Pendekar Chahaya, "Masa Depan Bangsa" perlu di jaga dengan penuh amanah dengan laungan, "biar berputih tulang daripada berputih mata".

3. Oleh kerana perjuangan bangsa adalah perjuangan yang tiada had umur dan masa, maka, - walaupun dihadang dengan seribu rintangan - selagi bermaya, selangkah demi selangkah Pendekar Chahaya menyusun dan mengorak langkah ke hadapan, siapsedia, bertindak mengikut keadaan dan musim. Untuk mengatasi muslihat musuh, Pendekar Chahaya tidak menggunakan strategi dan senjata yang sama pada setiap peperangan.

4. Senjata dan strateginya diwaktu "musim sejuk" tidak digunapakai diwaktu "musim panas".

5. Jika bertindak, Pendekar Chahaya tidak memandang pada siapa yang "benar" dan siapa yang "salah", TETAPI memandang pada "sikap dan tindakan mereka pada sesuatu masa".

6. Pendekar Chahaya tidak menghalang sesiapa dan pantang juga dihalang untuk memperjuangkan nasib bangsanya. Pendekar Chahaya tahu bahawa pendekar-pendekar lain juga berhak untuk menyesuaikan pendirian selaras dengan keadaan semasa dan beliau tidak terkejut apabila mereka berubah sikap. Pendekar Chahaya memberi setiap mereka masa yang diperlukan untuk menjustifikasikan tindakan masing-masing.

7. Tetapi Pendekar Chahaya tidak berkompromi dan bersekongkol dengan petualang-petualang.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010


1. Sungguh pun tidak berpindidikan dari menara gading tetapi orang tua-tua dahulu pandai "berkata-kata" dengan maksud yang menyusuk perasaan dan jiwa.

2, Kata-kata " berkilat ikan di air saya tahu jantan betinanya " adalah contoh klasik

3. Kata-kata di atas menggambarkan kepada pembaca atau pendengar bahawa pencipta kata-kata itu adalah orang yang cukup berpengalaman tentang jenis-jenis ikan yang hidup di air. Kata-kata ini juga membawa makna bahawa sipenciptanya mungkin seorang nelayan atau individu yang amat arif dengan kehidupan seorang nelayan.

4. Baru-baru ini seorang anak muridnya bertanya pada Pendekar Chahaya, apakah maksud kata-kata, "PERLU WADAH BARU?"

5. Pendekar Chahaya tersenyum dan menjawab seperti berikut:

a) Kata-kata itu membawa makna bahawa "benda yang sedia ada itu sudah tidak berguna/berfungsi lagi dan hendaklah diganti.

b) Pencetus/penggubal kata-kata itu seolah-olah amat arif dengan hal/perkara yang "bermasalah" itu.

c) Pencetus kata-kata itu menampakkan dirinya bahawa beliau arif/tahu cara/alat pengganti yang baik/sesuai kepada "benda yang sedia ada yang akan di ganti itu"

d) Pada pendapat sipencetus kata-kata itu "sipengganti/alat pengganti yang hendak atau telah dikenal pasti itu adalah lebih baik daripada "benda sedia ada" yang hendak diganti itu.

e) Dan, oleh kerana perkataan "perlu" telah diletakkan di hadapan perkataan-perkataan "wadah baru" maka rangkaian kata-kata "perlu wadah baru" membawa pengertian/ makna bahawa kalau benda lama itu tidak diganti maka akan timbul suatu masalah.

6. Pendekar Chahaya meneruskan hujah, "Anaknda juga harus ingat bahawa sipenggubal "kata-kata hikmat" dahulu mencetuskan kata-kata dengan ikhlas semata-mata sebagai panduan hidup. Tapi kini, setiap "kata-kata" perlu diteliti atau diketahui pencetusnya. Ini adalah kerana, mungkin juga Sipencetus "kata-kata" itu mempunyai "agenda" kepentingan diri yang disalutkan dengan kata-kata manis dan menggamit.

7. "Kenapa Tuan Guru berkata sedemikian, seolah-olah Tuan Guru tahu perkara yang sebenar disebalik pertanyaan asal saya itu?"

8. "Anaknda saya ini orang lama. Tidak kan saya tak tahu perkara-perkara yang telah dan sedang berlaku disekeliling saya. Dan saya juga tahu bahawa anaknda tidak puas hati dengan penjelasan saya kapada persoalan anaknda itu atas sebab bahawa anaknda tahu bahawa saya tahu apa yang anaknda maksudkan yang sebenar".

9. "Macamana Tuan Guru tahu?", anak murid Pendekar Chahaya bertanya dengan nada kehairanan.

10. Pendekar Chahaya menjawab dengan menggunakan kata-kata lama, "Berkilat ikan di air, saya tahu jantan dan betinanya".

Sunday, August 15, 2010


1. Setiap masalah ada cara penyelesaiannya

2. Masalah timbul sebab ada penyebab atau pencetusnya

3. Sesuatu masalah tidak dapat ditangani oleh mereka yang tergolong di dalam atau di antara masalah yang hendak ditangani itu.

4. Masalah hanya boleh ditangani oleh mereka yang tidak bermasalah atau tidak tergolong di dalam masalah berbangkit

5. Dan sesunggunya, masalah yang disebut oleh mereka yang bermasalah sebagai suatu masalah, sebenarnya adalah bukan masalah bagi orang ramai, TETAPI masalah mereka yang bermasalah itu.

6. Dan sesunggunya juga, bahawa masalah yang dinggap oleh mereka yang bermasalah itu sebagai suatu masalah, sebenarnya adalah kebaikan untuk orang ramai yang lain.

7. Kesimpulannya, bukan semua masalah itu masalah.