POLITIK TANAH AIRKU

19 Januari 2025

POLITIK TANAH AIRKU

Wahai saudara-saudaraku Melayu Islam, marilah kita bermuhasabah dengan hati yang tenang dan fikiran yang jujur. Sudah terlalu lama kita terleka, dan dalam kelekatan itu kita juga telah diperleka. Kita sibuk dengan perbezaan kecil, tetapi lupa melihat bahaya besar yang sedang menghakis kekuatan kita sedikit demi sedikit. Hari ini, kita mula bimbang akan satu perkara yang sangat menyakitkan hati: Melayu Islam boleh menjadi lemah di tanah air sendiri.

Kelemahan ini bukan datang secara tiba-tiba. Ia datang kerana perpecahan, kerana kita lebih setia kepada bendera parti daripada roh perpaduan, dan kerana kita terlalu mudah dipengaruhi oleh permainan politik. Parti-parti politik Melayu Islam masing-masing berpegang kepada dasar dan falsafah sendiri. Itu tidak salah. Tetapi apabila perbezaan ini menjadi tembok yang menghalang kerjasama, maka yang rugi bukan parti, tetapi bangsa dan agama.

Hakikatnya, rakyat biasa sentiasa berada di bawah kawalan dan pengaruh kepimpinan politik. Apabila pemimpin berpecah, rakyat ikut berpecah. Apabila pemimpin bertelagah, rakyat menjadi keliru dan jadi mangsa berbagai dasar, polisi dan pentadbiran baru. Sebab itu, kita sebagai rakyat tidak boleh menyerahkan seluruh masa depan kita kepada parti semata-mata. Walaupun tidak menyertai mana-mana parti, kita tetap wajib membuat pilihan yang bijak, kerana pilihan kitalah yang akan menentukan keselamatan dan hala tuju Melayu Islam.

Ingatlah, payung terakhir kita ialah Sultan-Sultan dan Raja-Raja Melayu. Institusi ini juga tidak terlepas daripada tekanan dan permainan politik. Jika rakyat lemah, institusi ini akan lebih mudah diperkecilkan. Maka kekuatan sebenar mesti bermula dari jiwa rakyat sendiri.

Marilah kita bersatu bukan kerana parti, tetapi kerana Allah, Islam, bangsa Melayu, dan masa depan anak cucu kita. Bersatu dalam roh, bersatu dalam tujuan, dan berbeza dengan adab. Jika kita terus berpecah, jangan salahkan orang lain apabila kita akhirnya menjadi lemah di negeri sendiri.

Hanya Islam yang terbukti adil kepada semua bangsa dan agama, dan hanya Melayu yang sudi menerima berbagai kaum dan kepercayaan datang menetap di Tanahair mereka. Dan Islam mengajar kita supaya adil dengan semua manusia.

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَن تُؤَدُّوا الْأَمَانَاتِ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهَا وَإِذَا حَكَمْتُم بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَن تَحْكُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ نِعِمَّا يَعِظُكُم بِهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا

Maksudnya: Sesungguhnya Allah perintahkan kamu supaya menunaikan amanah kepada ahlinya. Dan apabila kamu berhukum di antara manusia, bahawa kamu menjatuhkan hukum dengan adil. Sesungguhnya Allah sebaik-baik yang mengingatkan kamu dengannya. Sesungguhnya Allah, Dia lah Tuhan yang Maha Mendengar, Lagi Maha Melihat. (An-Nisa’: 58)

Kita sudah alami dengan rasuah yang berleluasa dan salah guna kuasa yang melampau seperti berlaku hukuman yang double standard, membenar pencerobohan tanah, 'menghukum rakyat' selepas selesai pilihanraya, negara dan korporat kaya raya manakala rakyat terhimpit,  politiking yang keanak-anakan serta perangai 'siapa besar', dan keruntuhan akhlak yang bertentangan dengan budaya dan nilai ketimuran,   

Sedar dan bangunlah rakyat semua. Seruan ini demi keselamatan negara yang berbilang kaum, ugama dan kepercayaan. Hanya Islam yang boleh memimpin dengan adil kerana kita berpandukan Al Quran dan Sunnah.

18 Disember 2025

Pemerhatian terhadap perkembangan politik mutakhir menunjukkan bahawa kekalahan besar yang dialami oleh kerajaan dan sekutunya di Sabah telah mencetuskan satu fasa reaksi politik yang kelihatan tergesa-gesa dan defensif. Dalam keadaan ini, pelbagai naratif baharu mula diketengahkan, seolah-olah bertujuan mengalih fokus rakyat daripada isyarat penolakan yang jelas telah dizahirkan melalui proses demokrasi. Pendekatan sedemikian boleh ditafsirkan sebagai usaha pembingkaian semula realiti politik (reframing), di mana isu-isu sampingan diangkat bagi menutup kegagalan menangani isu teras yang lebih mendesak.

Lebih membingungkan, perubahan pendirian dan slogan politik yang sebelum ini diangkat sebagai prinsip perjuangan — seperti retorik “No Anwar, No DAP” — kini kelihatan tidak lagi konsisten. Peralihan ini menimbulkan persoalan serius tentang sama ada prinsip tersebut bersifat ideologi yang tulen atau sekadar alat taktikal yang disesuaikan mengikut keperluan semasa. Apabila slogan berubah tanpa penjelasan yang meyakinkan, keyakinan awam terhadap kejujuran politik turut terhakis.

Keadaan ini mengundang tanggapan bahawa gembar-gembur politik yang dipertontonkan hari ini dan besuk berkemungkinan besar hanyalah satu lakonan strategik atau demonstrasi simbolik kuasa, bukannya  cerminan keazaman sebenar untuk memperjuangkan kepentingan rakyat. Lebih membimbangkan, modus operandi yang sama seolah-olah diulang — memanipulasi emosi penyokong melalui naratif moral dan perjuangan — tanpa perubahan substantif terhadap dasar atau hasil yang nyata. Tapi masih ada yg taat dan setia.

Dalam realiti yang jauh lebih membumi, anggota keselamatan terus diperah tenaganya siang dan malam demi memastikan ketenteraman awam, sering kali tanpa perhatian atau penghargaan yang setimpal. Rakyat jelata pula terus dihimpit tekanan ekonomi akibat peningkatan kos sara hidup yang berterusan, termasuk kenaikan harga barangan asas seperti sayur-sayuran. Ironinya, ketika rakyat berjuang untuk kelangsungan hidup, perbahasan politik nasional masih cenderung berputar di sekitar naratif kuasa dan persepsi, bukannya penyelesaian konkrit terhadap masalah sebenar yang dihadapi masyarakat. Jika ada pun hanya temberang semata-mata.

Keseluruhannya, situasi ini memperlihatkan satu jurang yang semakin melebar antara retorik politik dan realiti sosial. Selagi politik lebih tertumpu kepada pengurusan persepsi berbanding pengurusan keperluan rakyat, kepercayaan awam akan terus terhakis, dan legitimasi moral kepimpinan akan kekal dipersoalkan.

US: THE ILLUSION OF MORAL LEADERSHIP

The Illusion of Moral Leadership

In Malaysia, it is not unusual that many people know more about American politics than about events in their own region. Names such as Trump — often portrayed as the embodiment of “what is wrong” with America — are widely recognised. The dominant narrative is simple: Trump is bad.

However, from a broader historical and policy perspective, the problem does not lie with one individual president. To many observers, every U.S. president has presided over policies that caused destruction, instability, and suffering far beyond America’s borders. The faces change, the rhetoric improves or worsens, but the outcomes in many regions remain strikingly consistent.

American political leaders are often described as intellectually sophisticated, armed with elite education and advanced institutions. Yet intelligence should not be confused with wisdom. There is a difference between strategic brilliance and moral clarity. In this regard, one could argue—somewhat uncomfortably—that certain groups commonly dismissed as “backward” demonstrate clearer boundaries on sovereignty, culture, and consequence than those who claim to lead the “free world.”

What sustains this global perception of American moral authority is not merely policy, but the extraordinary effectiveness of its media machinery. American media does not simply report reality; it curates it. Failures are reframed as interventions, destruction becomes diplomacy, and civilian suffering is reduced to collateral language. The story is carefully managed, polished, and exported.

As a result, many around the world see a superpower that still speaks confidently, acts decisively, and lectures persistently—while internally showing clear signs of exhaustion. One might say that today’s superpower resembles a very ill old man: still loud, still influential, but increasingly fragile.

History teaches us that no empire collapses suddenly. Decline is usually prolonged, denied, and narrated away—right up until it becomes undeniable. When that moment arrives, it is rarely dramatic. It is simply acknowledged, quietly, as inevitable.

Is there a hidden power, operating deep in the basements of a  hospital, that quietly determines the governance and eventual downfall of the so-called ‘strongest superpower in the world’?

Is Democracy No Longer Relevant?

Is democracy still relevant today? A growing number of events around the world have raised this question. Elections, once celebrated as the purest expression of public will, can now be manipulated through various means—internally, externally, or even by foreign actors operating across borders.

In many cases, those who put themselves forward as candidates, or who are carefully sponsored by political cartels, appear less interested in governing than in remaining in power indefinitely and exploiting it without restraint. Voters, meanwhile, are repeatedly misled through layers of deception, half-truths, and carefully constructed narratives.

There are also instances where neighbouring states—or actors from the opposite side of the globe—seek to “take over” a country not through invasion, but through cultivation. Potential leaders are nurtured, promoted, financially supported, and strategically engineered to ensure that these political “assets” are eventually elected as presidents or prime ministers.

In more extreme cases, a variety of brutal strategies are employed to secure power—ranging from intimidation to assassination, whether by gunfire, poisoning, or execution staged to appear legitimate.

Democracy, it seems, struggles to survive in the presence of unchecked greed. As long as human ambition remains unrestrained, democracy risks erosion and eventual collapse, only to be replaced by another man-made ideology—one that may prove far worse than the system it claims to improve upon.

Moral Uncertainty, Institutional Silence, and the Social Cost of Inconsistency

The issue of LGBT acceptance has become one of the most polarising debates in contemporary society. It is discussed not only as a question of personal identity, but also as a moral, religious, cultural, and public-health concern. The controversy does not arise solely from the existence of LGBT individuals, but from how institutions—particularly religious ones—have chosen to respond.

In recent decades, many Christian institutions have struggled to maintain consistency in their teachings regarding sexuality. For centuries, doctrinal positions were clear and unambiguous. Today, however, these positions appear increasingly fluid, often revised in response to social pressure rather than theological reflection. This inconsistency has created confusion among believers. Some leave Christianity not because they reject faith itself, but because they perceive religious leadership as uncertain, reactive, or unwilling to speak clearly.

Rather than offering firm moral guidance, many preachers choose silence or uncritical acceptance—sometimes out of fear of public backlash, legal consequences, or social marginalisation. While compassion and respect for individuals are essential, silence on core doctrinal matters weakens institutional credibility. A religion that continuously adjusts its beliefs to mirror prevailing cultural trends risks appearing directionless, prompting followers to disengage altogether.

Beyond theology, there are legitimate public-health discussions that are often avoided due to political sensitivity. Certain sexual behaviours—regardless of orientation—are statistically associated with higher risks of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. Historically, patterns of transmission reflected behavioural risk, not moral judgment. Ignoring this reality does not protect public health; it undermines honest prevention strategies.

When medical data is suppressed or reframed to avoid discomfort, society loses the ability to address health crises rationally. Public-health policy must be driven by evidence, not ideological pressure. Awareness, prevention, and behavioural risk education are necessary regardless of how controversial the discussion may be.

Ultimately, the problem is not disagreement—it is the loss of moral clarity and intellectual honesty. A society cannot sustain itself when its institutions, religious or otherwise, are unwilling to articulate boundaries, consequences, or convictions. Compassion without principles becomes permissiveness; principles without compassion become cruelty. Sustainable societies require both, not the abandonment of one in favour of the other.

Conclusion: Civilisational Boundaries and Long-Term Societal Consequences

In the long term, social practices and moral frameworks are not neutral; they shape the future character, stability, and direction of a society. What may appear today as personal freedom or individual expression can, over time, influence family structures, demographic trends, public health priorities, education systems, and national identity. Societies eventually bear the collective consequences of what they choose to normalise.

It is therefore important to recognise that Western and Eastern civilizations are built upon fundamentally different cultural and philosophical foundations. The concept of human rights, often presented as universal and unlimited, does not exist in a vacuum. In reality, rights have always operated within boundaries defined by culture, history, religion, and social responsibility. No society functions without limits; without them, social cohesion weakens.

From an Eastern perspective—and particularly within Islamic civilisation—certain practices are not regarded merely as private choices but as matters with communal and moral implications. Islam places strong emphasis on preserving lineage, family structure, social harmony, and moral order. As such, homosexual practices and related expressions are not accepted, not out of hatred or hostility, but because they are viewed as incompatible with the ethical and social framework that sustains the community.

This position is not unique to Islam, nor is it driven solely by theology. It reflects a broader Eastern understanding that society must prioritise collective well-being over unrestricted individualism. Importing moral norms across civilisations without regard for cultural context risks long-term instability, social fragmentation, and the erosion of deeply rooted values.

Ultimately, sustainable nations are those that safeguard their moral, cultural, and civilisational boundaries while governing with clarity and consistency. Respect for differences between cultures is itself a fundamental principle—one that cannot exist if all societies are compelled to adopt a single, uniform moral model regardless of context or consequence.