The US war on terror was stopped in its tracks by Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network. He used the same techniques the Americans had used to challenge Islam. This is, whatever you might call it, a religious war. The Christians are trying to push the Muslims into irrelevance, but the Muslims are fighting back. The British faced a similar war in India. But that took 90 years to fruit: from the Brahmin, Mangal Pandey, who objected to lard on the bullets the East India Company provided, to Mahatma Gandhi, who perfected the non-violent fight for independence, who led the movement to fight for independence. Only the Muslims could have stopped the United States in an open war. But their victory would not last 90 years, probably half that. The tactics used to confront the invader is different.

The Al Qaeda attack on the Abqaiq oil refinery in Saudi Arabia was foiled, but that the car bombers made a point. The oil refineries in the Middle East are exposed. American presence in Iraq for reasons that are now found to be false, and its war on terror on the Muslims, will see to that. In Pakistan's Baluchistan, action against the Bukti and Murree tribes by President Musharraf had redound on Pakistan. He is in a precarious position. The earth quake last year affected the Pathans. The foreign aid was distributed by the Pakistan government, which already was in enmity with the Pathans.

More important is what this means to President Bush. He can be put on trial one day for all those prisoners held without trial at Guantanamo Bay prison. When the poliical climate changes, he would be asked to explain why he did what he did. No amount of grandstanding would help him; his Administration has not allowed a President that courtesy, that there are events in the conduct of a presidency, he has to do ultra-legal acts. It has denied that of Saddam Hussein by charging him with offenses that were not when it happened. The enemies of President Bush, especially Americans, would adopt the methods he ordered to try Saddam Hussein. The Middle East is in ferment, often at loggerheads with their rulers as of the United States. This will be clearer with the passing days. Its control of the air waves ensures that only its version is broadcast, but the ground, often illiterate and with no stomach for philosophical or diplomatic argument, listens to another voice. It might be Al-Qaeda, or it might be someone else. And what the Muslim ground knows of the conflict is now what CNN says, not even what Al-Jazeera says. but what is told them by the mosque officials.

The United States lives in a dream world. The Sunnis are on the offensive, and is supported by the Middle East where 90 per cent of Muslims are Sunni. A guerrilla war is in force, causing havoc, and while the US says, weakly, is not playing according to the rules of warfare. The suicide bombings have made it difficult to withdraw US troops, as the US electorates wants them to. Yesterday, the suicide bombers went into a police academy in Baghdad, and killed 27 people including themselves. Meanwhile, the US invasion of Iraq has brought desolation in the 21st century as the Mongol invasion had in the 11th century. The US devastated Iraq as a tactic because it used air power to destroy. The insurgents kill in suicide attacks. And the US do not know how they can be stopped. US officials say that the bombs are 'smart' and be devastatingly accurate. But it cannot be, given the damage the US has caused. They would have created peace in a desert, if the Sunni underground was not strong. It is in talks with the US, and offered to bring in Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, the reputed leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but the US peremptorily dismissed it. The election is coming in the US, and if the Bush administration shows to be giving in, it might have terrible consequences in the US. In a guerrilla war, there are no set piece battles. They will act unilaterally to bring down a static army. They will create fear among the people, already cowed with constant US bombing. All that the US can accuse the guerrillas is that they are not playing according to the rules. But the rules each follow are different. The US version is fiction, but it tries everyone to accept that as the truth.

The CIA sending those it arrests to secret prisons is an election issue in the United States. It has become one purely because the US has broken all rules of government by making foreign politicians responsible for acts that were not illegal in office. Now it puts the US answerable. The war in Iraq brought this out. A wise general plans how to get out before planning an invasion. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq and the unseating of Saddam Hussein were false. The US did not want Iraq under Saddam Hussein to be an exemplar in the Middle East. Iraq was invaded because the world was told it was an ally of al-Qaeda. It is now, and admitted by the US that the invasion made sure of that. It had no policy except it wanted to control Iraq's oil, second largest reserve known. The insurgents, former rulers, having decided they will never rule Iraq again, will not allow any one else. It is a dangerous position for the US to be in, now matter how many CIA plants it brings into the government. It has turned a secular government into a racial and religious one and divided the country into minorities. The Kurds want a government of their own, their price for joining the anti-Saddam band wagon. The secularists, from the three racial minorities in Iraq, do not matter. The invasion has ensured Iraq will be religious and racial in the end. Mr Ayad Allawi, a secular Shia former prime minister, was beaten with shoes, a particular insult, when he visited Najaf shrine. He hopes to play an important role after the elections next week. The US thinks he can. The CIA thinks he can. But can he?

But both will be prostitutes of globalisationt, either as one or as two. The globalisation is to ensure the Western nations' control of the world. There is the downside, for which no serious consideration is made. Globalisation, in other words, is another form of colonialism. But globalisation has its naysayers. Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and others like them do not agree with globalisation as it is practiced now. Education has make people think, and people around the world see globalisation as one in which they could benefit. The United States is tearing its hair on jobs lost because of it. But it was the United States that set the trend of having its manufacturing facilities in the regions of the world where manufacturing costs are cheap. IBM computers will soon be Chinese. The nether regions of the world are becoming educated, and see why they cannot benefit from globalisation in its stated form, not as its prostitutes. They were manufacturing countries before globalisation. China in the 21st century is Japan in the 20th. The West is trying its best to stop it. But it cannot. China has forced prices down. It had upset prices worldwide, by offering good products at a cheaper price. Parker now has a manufacturing unit in China and sells pens for RM25 that would have cost ten times more if China was not a manufacturing country. The United States is worried that globalisation would go away from its control, politically and economically. But this problem is not with the prostitutes. They will provide the services to whoever is dominant.

Islam has become the opponent in the American crusade on terror. We saw a glimpse of that in the bombings of the three American hotels in Amman last week. Those killed were Arabs, but the news networks failed to mention that they had more in common with the West than their compatriots. There was hardly any reaction to the already suffering Muslims in Jordan. When the Americans and later King Abdullah of Jordan blamed the bombing on a dead man, and went into detail of how an Iraqi couple was involved, the point was missed. Al Qaeda or Muslims would attack American and European institutions anywhere in the world at will, just as American does now. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has subsequently taken responsibility for the attack, erasing any doubts who was responsible. And the West has taken that as proof. But a bomb which exploded was in the celing. These Al Qaeda fellows are so smart that they put the bomb there, we are told. The intelligence agencies are on the ball. They found that out. They are guarding the hotel round the clock, as is common in the Middle East for decades. How come they did not catch them? The 57 Arabs who died and 300 wounded in the bombings will only be relevant if the United States can treat the 100,000 it killed, often at weddings, during and after its invasion of Iraq.

AL Qaeda has said it is responsible for the bomb attacks on three American-owned hotels in Jordon. The Americans call this group Al Qaeda in Iraq. If you listen or read what they have to say or write, they do not tell you the most important fact: that as the war on terror on Muslims is worldwide, the response is too. They ignore this, and suggest the Jordanian Arabs were the ones most affected. But 100,000 Iraqis have died in American bombing. There is no word of that now except that they deserved it. The US Senate has passed a resolution that the American legal system should not be available to those sent to Guantanamo prison from countries in the Third World. The Americans have latched on to Al Qaeda's statement that they are responsible. They are playing an information game as the Americans are. They have found a new organisation called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and its leaders responsible and therefore gulty. The war on terror against Muslims requires less standards of proof of guilt than murder, for instance. But this is a fight unto death, with both sides having access to the same methods. If the Americans can attack a defenceless country headed by a CIA agent, after months of telling the world a pack of lies, the reaction is equally swift. When it justifies the invasion of Iraq also as a war on terror, and alientate the Sunnis, in power since the British put them in power more than 80 years ago, the reaction was swift. Iraq is in a civil war. It would never be a country again, with handouts from the United States to keep it going, and unsafe for any who supports it. The Sunnis have waged a civil war since they were removed in a fit of anger. They don't want to return. Their aim is to destroy. Four or five Iraqi Sunni organisations supporting the elections next month is neither here nor there. But the Americans and their cohorts in Iraq and elsewhere look upon every Sunni move in their favour as evidence of grasping any floating in the sea. The bombing of the three hotels in Jordan is a direct response to the invasion of Iraq. The hotels would not be bombed if Iraq was not invaded.

AL-Qaeda SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE blamed for bombing three Amman hotels. Abu Musab Al-Zarkawi, who is believed to be dead, is the agent directly responsible, the television news and talk shows try desperately to inform the world that this bombings are the trade mark of Al-Qaeda. There is great effort to blame Al-Qaeda for the bombing although there is no hard evidence. But the United States and others have decided that Al-Qaeda is responsible. And that gets world wide play. But is it? Jordan is a soft target who could cause mayhem in the West's war on terror. Iraq is to the left of it, Syria to the north, Israel to the East. It need not be Al-Qaeda or the believed dead Al-Zarkawi, it could be any of the myriad of countries and organisations that could be responsibe. It could also be the West, which is why the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which we are told can investigate it, is rushing to Amman to aid the Jordanian authorities. But is the FBI going there as the Australian police authorities are going to Bali to help the Indonesian authorities investigate the bombing in Bali: to remove the evidence of their involvement?

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, ESPECIALLY, in conflict is normal. To suggest the Al Qaeda is split, as the Guardian suggests yesterday (26 October), is not unusual. Just as there is a split between the United States and its allies on how to conduct the war in Iraq. But this is information war and one side is told its opponent is split. As if both sides are not. We see the split within the leaders and between the leaders and the people. The splits are reported in loving detail by the people who started as handmaidens of the war but the splits, mistakes, and doubts and their own credibility caused them to take a neutral stand. So, the United States and its allies assume the worst in their enemy, and reporters voice them in their colums. They do not bother with the insurgents who do not give press conferences as the Americans do. The Al Qaeda network has shown a sophistication in its operations, that how can you be sure that its split is deliberately fed to the Western journalists? What we have learnt of Al Qaeda and the insurgents are suppositions from Washington, London and other capitals, usually in the course of a propaganda onslaught. Those who are not on either side of the fence in Iraq and elsewhere see through this propaganda battle, and those directly not involved in Iraq take a neutral if not a partisan stand against the United States. This propaganda battle is to reassure their own people that all is well. The level of propaganda rises as the insurgents, in reality the Iraqi nationalist and the Sunni who detest, among other things invaders in their midst, make havoc of the invaders and gain support around the world. The US assistant secretary of public diplomacy recently toured the Muslim nations to gain support of the war, which she did not get whatever Malaysian newspapers wrote of the visit.

Another factor making the American invader having a rough time is Saddam Hussein's trial. The man is behaving not as the United States expected, and his trial, with his principled stand, will give the Sunni and the Iraqi vicarious victory. The United States is now talking of shifting the trial to another Middle Eastern country. If it does that, he, and the Iraqi nationalist and Sunni has won. The United States, faced with an insurgency that has no end is now faced with the fallout of the Saddam trial and gowing US public reaction against the war. You cannot run an empire on other people's money. But that is what the United States is doing. Its only product is money, and so it allowed US companies to hive off its manufacturing to cheaper Asian countries. The public was kept quiet for a while, but it lost the jobs as a result. Now, President Bush and the neocons are in trouble with his own Republican Party over the war in Iraq. The smoking gun is in the closet of the highest offical, and he would be forced to pull back the troops in Iraq before the next election. Vice President Cheney is implicated, and would have to resign to save the president. But unlike Vietnam, the United States has gone to war on terror with a Muslim country, and blamed Al Qaeda for it, and has made plans to get rid of the Saudi monarchy. I think he would not be allowed to, for local reasons, as he does not want to invade Syria over the Hariri assassination. He hopes the IAEC will rein in Iran on its nuclear plans. But the IAEC is discredited, although it has won the Nobel Peace Prize. The United States has manouevred it such that he got it. But it has to fight its battle in Iraq, with or without troops, for it has started a battle with no end in sight. The United States undersecretary for public diplomacy, Mrs Karen Hughes, visited Muslim nations to get these countries over, and her record is patchy at best. In Malaysia, the newspapers sang in praise of her visit and her results, but would the National Front go against the war in Iraq? It would not. The National Front cannot be against the war on Iraq, knows full well that the people are with Al Qaeda in this war on terror. Pak Lah is chairman of the Organisation of Islam Countries, but he is in the minority in supporting the United States. His attempt to get Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim to the chairmanship of a Muslim fund of nearly a billion US dollars came to nought. All Muslim countries now supporting the United States in this war on Iraq must eventually change sides, or its Muslim street would not let it alone.

The US and its cohorts have realised late in the day that it was a mistake to put Saddam on trial. He wins either way. He expects to be hanged, and has prepared for it. He wins if he is sentenced to death, and he wins if he is not. He has made himself a martyr. The Arab nations did not like him in power, and would have hated him if the revolt had been home grown. Like the war on terror is a smokescreen for the war on Muslims, the US came to Iraq to root out the Sunnis. They might do it in the name of freedom or other euphemisms, but their aim was clear. Al Qaeda, which Saddam in power did not countenance in his country, is now in it. The Iraqi Sunni has decided he would help in the rebuilding of the new fourth world state of Iraq, brought to that status by the Americans and its cohorts. Their aim now is to ensure that the American does not move out except at great cost. They destroyed another oil pipeline the other day. They have killed nearly 2,000 soldiers, most of whom were killed after the war was over. President Bush wanted to be the man who extended the crusades that Pope Urban II started nearly a thousand years ago. This is a world wide fight between Christianity and Islam. It is also an information war, in which the Muslims also have equal access in broadcasting their views. And the US and its cohorts are caught in their wrongdoings. The press around the world, which the West have brainwashed, parrots their views, but the Muslim also has his press to spread his case. It is the Muslim street which reads that message while not able to read the US message. I do not think the Iraqi government the United States have set up would last long after its departure from the country. The British lasted nearly 40 years in Iraq, and ended in 1958, had put the Sunni in power although in the three provinces it had carved from the Ottoman Empire, the Shias were the majority and the second were Kurds. For about 80 years, the Sunni had been in power in Iraq. An American official said boastfully that the United States is more powerful than the Roman Empire. Perhaps it is. But it is imbued with the same characteristics in empire-building as Rome. And faces the same problems worldwide.

The insurgency is Sunni-based. It gets help from other Sunnis as the United States and Britain widens its arc of support by getting countries to join it. Al Qaeda is involved. Why should it not when Australia and Japan is involved? It gets new recruits as the US and UK gets other countries to join it in this war on terror. The US army targets in Iraq are Sunni centres. Even Tal Afar is Sunni, though the majority in that town is Turkmen. Mosul, in the north and an oil town, is basically in guerilla hands. The insurgency in Iraq also hits at oil pipelines and facilities deliberately, denying the US and the Iraqi government they set up use of oil. In the 1990s, Saddam Hussein (as proxy for the US) fought a war with Ayatollah Khomeini, but each were careful not to destroy the other's oil facilities. The war destroyed only the area where it was fought. Iran and Iraq, as states, could do that. But such an option was not available in Iraq when the US reduced it to a rubble. Iraq is now a fourth world state. The Sunnis now are determined it should be under a regime that is set up by the Americans. The anger is on both sides, and a mutually- agreed-destruction is not possible now. The US has lost the initiative in asking Sunnis not to touch the oil facilities. So, the insurgency has two aims: one, to drive the invader out; or, as now, make it more expensive to him to get out, and two, to make it impossible for the Shia or the Kurd to take his place. The US-led coalition has destroyed Iraq, and dismantled its bureaucracy. The US plans to federalise Iraq makes it another reason for the Sunni insurgency to continue unabated.

ABU MUSAB ZARKAWI's dozen top lieutenants have been killed in Iraq, say the US military, but the mayhem, including the killing, caused by his group would continue without any let up. Abu Musab Zarkawi, in case you are wondering who he is, is, again according to the US military, Al Qaeda's top man in Iraq. Probably he is. But he is probably more adept at getting lieutenants than the US military gives him credit for. Al-Qaeda had chosen him for just that capability, among others, for it is fighting a battle in Iraq in which public relations, particularly Western, is not on its side. The Al-Qaeda would not have landed in Iraq had Saddam Hussein been in power. He was very firm about not letting them in, and he did not allow either the Shias or religious groups be in power. And you could walk around after midnight in Baghdad during his rule. The US invaded Iraq to throw him out. Today, he is in jail and would probably be hanged, but he is fighting the Arab cause, and he welcomes anyone, including Al Qaeda, on his side. And made sure civil war will break out once the US withdraw, as they would have to do, not for exigencies of the situation in Iraq, but that the American people do not want the troops there. Now it is a civil and religious war, with Saddam, whom the Arab countries hated in office but support him how, and the US is caught in a cleft stick. The US has turned Iraq from a well run Arab country to one fit for civil war, but not before bombing the place with nuclear weapons and with conventional weapons so that like in Nagasaki and Hiroshima during World War II, Iraqis have to live with the after effects of that. US soldiers alreadty face the after-effects of handling the depleted uraniam bullets, and the US army has plans to quarantine those who handle depleted uranium bullets. The US believes that the people of Iraq will be grateful to them for the invasion of their country. They were talking of flowers thrown at them by grateful Iraqis for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. They made a war, and made a mess of it. And they would have to pay for it. It is Vietnam all over again, though the precise position of the Vietnamese and the Iraqis are different, and the battles are different now and 40 years ago.

Similarly in Bali. The emphasis is on how badly off the Balinese are, and the tourists, mostly Australians, who are put to such terrible inconvenience, by being bombed out of their revelry. No one stops to think why they are bombed. The news is about Balinese who lose their tourist dollars, and the news wring us our tears, and makes us not to think. But the Bali bombing is not accepted as an Indonesian attack. It is to get Indonesia on the anti-Islamic terror bandwagon. There is widespread news on Malaysians taking part, and we are told soon enough that they have escaped. We are shown on television the sabotuers leaving the scene in grainy pictures, and we concentrate our attention on news about the saboteurs, and the impact on the locals and the tourists, who have had an idyllic existence destroyed by the bombers. It did not work as those in authority intended. As is well known, cameras can lie. Early this morning (05 October 2005), the Bali bombing is still news on CNN and BBC. The Western reporters are sceptical of Al Qaeda or its fraternal cousins responsible. So CNN is forced to bring on Rohan Gunaratne, a questionable security expert, to show the Al Qaeda or Jemah Islamiyah is responsible. No one has yet told us why it took place, or given a credible explanation why the bombing should be in Bali, other than it is Hindu and a popular Holiday resort of lumpen Australians. But to have Al Qaeda or Jemah Islamiyah conduct two or its four alleged bombings in Indonesia in Bali suggests that the organisation operates to make the Western powers look good. But as I wrote on 04 October 2005, they used bombs normally available to governments. What the Bali bombings showed is that they have an arsenal as powerful as the Western powers. That may not be correct, but it leaves us wondering if the Western powers are a match to them.

There is an Australian researcher in town looking at the early foundantion of ASEAN, and speaking to the people involved in it, and I have accompanied her on many occasions, the story she got was not what the printed records of historians and researchers reveal. So, which are theories, and which facts? Or do participants lose their objectivity 40 years after the event, and it is the historian and the book writer of the period who has the facts correct? There is a fetish about "correctness" of facts, but how historians and journalists get their facts correct is by going to who is in authority and take their word for it. They do not delve into events beyond what they cannot see. Four days after the Bali bombings last week, it is a replay of events three years ago at the Bali bombings, but the reporting is the same. There is no attempt at anaysis, except to blame Al Qaeda and its fraternal organisations. Indonesia is not allowed to conduct its own inquiries, Australia, like the Bali bombings in 2002, have offered to 'help' Indonesia to solve the 'crime". But is Australia coming in to help or to rub out its own involvement? We do not know if Australia is involved, but reporters were quick to blame Al Qaeda and its fraternal organisations. And they would not blame Al Qaeda and others if the Western embassies do not say so. (I have worked for Reuters, and I could not write a story until a Western embassy 'confirmed' it.) It has to do with the war in Iraq and the war on terror. It is not going well, as any invasion would not, but it is going worse than in Vietnam. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, and it was important to the 'West' it is on board. So pressure is put on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyone and his governent, and the result is conflict between the Indonesian people and its government, just as there is in Pakistan.

TUN MAHATHIR GOT IT RIGHT. He did not apportion blame on the Bali bombings to Al Queda or the Jemayah Islamiyah or to other Muslim groups. But the ease with which both these organisations were blamed, and that this has been on the news particularly round-the- clock ever since the bombings last week, and the defensive posture of the Indonesian government followed by the British blaming the Australians for not letting it know of its 'early warning' to Australian revellers in Bali, and the constant berating of those who would listen that Al-Qaeda was involved, suggests something has gone wrong. The Western governments, or its intelligence agencies, are behind it, and keep at it because the people on the ground in Indonesia and elsewhere do not believe the events in Bali last week. The United States (and Australia, among others) created incidents in South Vietnam in the 1960s, blaming it on the Vietcong. There is no unanimity among Western reporters that Al Qaeda was involved, Jason Burke of the Guardian thought that Al Qaeda could not be involved, and the discordant voices in the Western media is matched by the ordinary people around the world, Muslim or otherwise, having doubts on the official story of the Bali bombing.

President Bush's reign should also be the end of America as a great power. President Bush diverted more money to rebuild the south than it has in iraq, which it first destroyed and now tries to wriggle out of rebuilding it. He, as commander in chief, allowed the US armed forces to use Depleted Uranium bullets in Iraq. The US does not announce in advance that its troops are using DU bullets or its navy ships are using nuclear weapons. But it obviously does. It has withdrawn USaid from those countries who are not prepared to vote against any attempt to bring the US to the International Criminal Court. It has signed an agreement with North Korea not to make nuclear weapons in return for American recognition and aid. All the time, US forces in South Korea carry DU bullets and other weapons of mass destruction. It is reverse side of globalisation. There is an assumption that globalisation should only be good. But the good is only for the Western powevers, as China is finding herself. But Osama bin Laden, who may be dead but is kept alive by the United States, and the Arab Muslim revolt in the Middle East is the reverse of globalisation. The US has got countries around the world to decry the Arab nations and Al-Qaeda and the Arab attack on New York. It is President Bush and the Western countries that now shiver in their pants. President Bush had a great role in this. And for which he will rue in his retirement.

What this deputy minister said is no different from another. The deputy internal security minister, Dato' Noh Omar, claimed at first the authorities were investigating a militant group similar to the al-Qaeda linked Jema'ah Islamiyah. But he shot his mouth off. He did not like what appeared in the newspapers the next day. Malaysia is trying a neutral line between US interest in fundamentalist Muslim groups and open support for Washington's war on terror, denying whever it can that Malaysia is a hotbed of Muslim fundamentalists. And now a deputy minister in the internal security minister whose minister is the Prime Minister no less reveals there is indeed an extremist religious sect. He had to rush and deny he said what he said. But in his view this is a great success for him: he got two bites of the cherry when others who can must be satisfied with only one!

This has nothing to do with religion or culture. It is part of a reaction to social change, a sort of Malay-Muslim counter-reformation of sorts against the way society around him evolves. We see evidence of this elsewhere: the Hindus fighting for religious purity against a fast evolving and increasingly secular India; the rise of Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist creeds that wants to keep the faithful within. This cannot, indeed should not, be dismissed as the work of errant religionists, for it is fueled from its heartland. Underlying it is a genuine fear that all religions, even Christianity, are losing out to "Western values". The rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States, which President George W Bush espouses, is in one sense no different than the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Malaysia: both reject Western secular values, and fear their faith would be swamped.

Pak Lah (1364)   United States (636)   Straits Times (412)   Samy Vellu (224)   Putra Jaya (200)   Chief Justice (200)   Saddam Hussein (188)   Vincent Tan (164)   Civil Service (154)   Parti KeADILan (148)   Islamic State (118)   Johore Bahru (100)   Sungei Buloh (94)   Bukit Tinggi (88)   Abdul Razak (80)   Pengkalen Pasir (68)   Ting Pek (64)   Armed Forces (59)   Soviet Union (58)

Malay Dominance (58)   Yong Teck (56)   Hong Kong (56)   Human Rights (56)   Syed Hamid (54)   Puteri UMNO (52)   Islam Hadhari (52)   Royal Commission (51)   Hussein Onn (51)   Rafidah Aziz (48)   Indian Congress (48)   Open House (44)   Vision Schools (44)   Shah Alam (44)   Malay Unity (42)   Chua Jui (42)   Abdul Taib (42)   Ampang Jaya (36)   Ras Adiba (36)

Osama Bin Laden (36)   Nik Aziz Nik (20)   Ling Liong Sik (18)   Lee Kuan Yew (18)

High Court Judge (14)   Wan Azizah Wan (9)   Lim Kit Siang (9)   Megat Junid Megat (8)

Mahathir (2960)

Anwar (2399)