ARTiculations

Gong Xi Fa Cai

2012-01-22T10:18:00.001+08:00

To all my Chinese friends, here’s to wishing you Happy New Year. May the dragon bring all of us happiness, good health, prosperity and lots of Bruce Lee’s fists and kicks in all our pursuit. Enjoy but be safe!

Totalitarian/absolutist economy

2012-01-19T16:29:00.001+08:00

The establishment, nourishment, protection and subsequent embellishment by any government of entities (corporate or otherwise) with monopolistic businesses and/or preferential treatment signal the rise of what I would term as totalitarian economy.

A totalitarian economy operates and behaves in manners not unlike a totalitarian or absolutist State. By its very nature, it feeds off compulsion and force, disallows and even destroys competition and gives no option nor choice to the consumers. It is beyond scrutiny as it is not answerable to any entity, let alone the very consumers which it aims to supply.

As a result of the totalitarian and absolutist approach, this economy owes little, if at all, affinity to the concepts of fairness and justness.

It is like a black hole. It swallows everything which is in its way. It then grows bigger. And bigger.

The only difference is that, unlike the real black holes, a totalitarian economy only grows bigger within the confines of the parameters defined by its own creators. Throw this economy into an unchartered territory, the real capitalist would just laugh its head off. With a mere snap of the capitalist’s finger, this totalitarian economy would be history.

That is not surprising. As a result of the constant nourishment, protection and forced embellishment of this economics absolutism/totalitarianism, such economy knows not how to compete. Its supernova-like explosive birth and subsequent growth deprives it of the ability to learn and to grow organically. This totally underdeveloped creature – underdeveloped in the sense that it is bereft of the elements which would ensure its vibrancy and survival in unchartered territories – has no defence mechanism nor the ability to adapt to changes within its surrounding, preferring to coil within the comfort of its mother’s lap.

A totalitarian/absolutist state compels its citizenry to submission by usages of physical force. It gives no option. Submit or be subjugated. Or even be incarcerated. And sometimes even killed.

A totalitarian/absolutist economy is not much less forceful or vicious. It gives consumers no choice nor option. You buy our cars. If not you have to pay substantially more for cars which are not ours. You use our supply. At our rates. If not, you would not have any other supply at all. Period.

Like a totalitarian state, totalitarian economy ensures great pains will befall its citizenry for any non-compliance or non-submission.

In this neo-totalitarianism, the consumers have no choice but to submit. If you do not buy our cars, you would be financially incarcerated by the finance companies for the duration of the hire-purchase agreements which you enter into to purchase other cars. You would be subjected to financial tortures inflicted upon yourself in the form of duties and taxes.

A totalitarian/absolutist state would not care a hoot about her people’s welfare. It exists for one purpose, namely, to ensure its own survival and continuity, at any price. It does not care about the price to be paid because really, the price is not paid by itself but by the people it subjugates.

The same with a totalitarian/absolutist economy. It really does not care about the welfare of the consumers. Thus the power window will break down in 2 weeks. The service centres should be called torture centres. These so called “service centres” is an insult to the word “service”. They are manned by inefficient, arrogant, un-smiling and sometimes even rude robots in human skins and hair. Ask them a question, these creatures would frown. Ask another and they would sulk. Ask a third one and they spit in your drinks.

And it will continue to churn out mediocre after mediocre products based on “joint-collaborations”. Which is just another way to describe the proverbial (a new-age proverb) “cut and paste” job. It cuts out the original maker’s emblem and paste its own emblem, for example.

A totalitarian state is beyond criticism. Because really, it does not care much about what people say about it. It doesn’t care because it controls the machinations of the state. It wields untold powers.

The same goes with a totalitarian economy. Thus a monopoly business can make hundreds of millions of losses and be compensated by its benevolent benefactors. It will then seek to make profits not by ensuring efficiency and addressing weaknesses but by increasing the price of its product, the supply of which it monopolises.

A totalitarian/absolutist economy grows up like a spoilt brat. It gets what it wants. Always. And when it doesn’t, it sulks and throws temper tantrums. The constant nourishment and absolute pampering takes away from it the ability to adapt to changes; to compete on a level playing field and to position itself in a strategic defence line if ever it is attacked by outside forces.

In addition, a totalitarian/absolutist economy is always told by its benefactors that it is the most beautiful; the best and the greatest. It thus grows with this “superiority complex”, believing itself to be among the giants. When exposed to - or even the threat of exposing it to -competition, it wilts like a virgin nymph high on Ecstasy at the feet of a sweet talker.

If and when all the ladders and props are taken away, a totalitarian economy would fall like a house of cards.

Malaysians – a gossipholic society?

2012-01-05T11:27:00.001+08:00

The Italian poet and novelist, Cesare Pavese, widely considered as among the major authors of the 20th century in Italy, left a brief note before his suicide.

The last sentence in that brief note says, “don’t gossip too much.”

Malaysians, and I must say, especially the Malays, are obviously not taking that advice to heart.

It is simply amazing that nowadays Malaysians are so caught up by the need to know what somebody else – especially celebrities - is doing. We have become a nation full of kepohs!

The advent of information technologies in the 21st century and of course the near free availability of connectivity in our country currently have contrived to elevate gossiping to something of a national obsession. Day in and day out all of us, to a certain extent, partake in acts of gossiping, be it political, social or even economics in nature.

However, what is really irksome is the proliferation of blatant breaches of privacy by way of the publications of, more often than not, photographs of some celebrities on the internet. This is often followed by unsolicited and gratuitous form of self righteous comments about the photographs and the celebrities in question. Ultimately, there will also be the usual self-righteous advice such as “kembalilah ke jalan Allah” aimed at the celebrities in question.

Yesterday I read about a certain young lady singer whose pictures in a wet long t-shirt were splashed (no pun intended) all over the internet world. Those pictures were apparently taken during a private pool party. I also saw a picture of another lady actress wearing a bare-back dinner gown making its round on the internet.

Needless to say, both set of pictures drew the usual “you-are-a-bad-Muslim-gal-kembalilah-ke-jalan-Allah” kind of comments from the moral nazis.

Today I visited a news portal and the major “news” on that portal today is about a Malaysian top student who is now studying abroad – who inevitably must be of the female gender (this kind of things actually only happen to the female sex. The males are quite obviously less interesting and significantly of no gossiping value) – who posted some pictures of herself on her fb page.

Apparently, before she went abroad, she used to wear the tudung. Her current picture shows her having blonde hair and wearing laced up legging.

Almost instantaneously, the closet mullahs began attacking her on her fb page with the usual “kembalilah ke jalan Allah” advice. She has since, apparently, deleted her fb page as a consequence.

Which begs the question, first and foremost, why are we so kepoh about whatever others wear or do? The next question, why are we not only so kepoh, but are so quick to judge other people simply by what they wear? I mean, we don’t even know these people and yet we are so quick to draw a moralistic line, compare that line to that of ours and impose ours on hers.

What makes us believe that a girl in tights or bikinis or a wet t-shirt is of lower moralistic value than those who wear the tudungs, hijabs or baju kurung?

Which brings all of us to the next frightening conclusion and that is, to the contemporary society, externalities are more important than the internals. It is like our whole moral compass is dictated by what we can see in three dimensions and that’s it. Nothing else matters.

And so if a girl wears a tudung or a baju kurung, she is quite obviously better, moral wise, than a girl wearing a plunging neck-line t-shirt. Little do we know the plunging neck-line girl works 2 hours a day as a volunteer worker at a day care center as opposed to the girl in baju kurung who don’t even think to help anybody in this world.

Umberto Eco, in his speech, “The Loss of Privacy” (published in “Turning Back the Clock”: Harvill Secker, 2007) noted, with accuracy if I may add, that “the first thing that the globalisation of communication through the internet threatened was the notion of boundaries.”

He then cleverly pointed out that the globalisation of communication as such shows two aspects of ourselves which were hitherto not quite as obvious. Firstly, there reside in everyone of us, what I would call, a “flasher” tendency, ie, the need to be seen. Secondly, there is also correspondingly, a need to see, which I would call the “voyeuristic” tendency.

He might be right on both counts.

Facebook, for example, serves to prove that most of us, if not all, feel the need to constantly exhibit ourselves to the world by uploading our own pictures or “updating” our status profile, no matter how inane they are or might be. Eco himself referred to a website where a person felt the need to post pictures of his own colon notwithstanding the sheer insignificance of such pictures.

Thus we would have pictures of ourselves eating nasi lemak on our fb pages. Or a profile status which reads “I am now at MARA building, KL.”

Correspondingly, there is also a desire to be a kepoh voyeur, ie to know what others are doing or to pry on others. How else do we explain the popularity of the so-called reality tv shows which portray the live of an entire family 24 hours a day? Most of us, it appears, are closet voyeurs!

But of course, in Malaysia, as in any other things, we have to take it a step further.

After blithely exposing ourselves on the internet with our pictures, thereby satisfying our primordial flasher tendency, we would go on prying on others, thereby satisfying our voyeur instinct. Most people in other societies would stop there.

No. We, Malaysians will not stop there. We than have to satisfy our yet-to-be-scientifically-or-philosophically-explained “Mullahistic tendency”.

We would then judge the person in the pictures which we have – morally and rightfully, to our mind, pried upon – and offer her (inevitably it is a “her”) our advice, which we consider, is our God given right and in fact is the one and only right thing to do.

“Kembalilah ke jalan Allah.”

A gift to the world?

2012-01-03T12:57:00.001+08:00

Let’s forget, for the moment, about Raja Petra, Harris Ibrahim, the police and FRU as well as the cows for a while.

It’s the new year. And with a new year, I think we are entitled to at least one new hope. Or one dream. Why not? After all, when hopes and dreams fade and vanish does death begin, I think.

Let’s talk about the environment, for a change.

About global warming. The melting of the ice caps. The greenhouse effects. The complete reliance on fossil fuel by the whole world. The consumption of fossil energy which results in the production of carbon which in turn eats up the ozone layer. Which then makes the world warmer and even hotter. Which then makes all of us turn on our air-conditioners even more. Which means we consume even more energy. The power plants then burn even more fossil fuel to produce energy. Which means they produce more carbons which in turn eats up the ozone making the world even hotter. And the heat melts the ice caps. Making the sea level grow higher. And it goes on and on and on in an endless cycle.

What will be of our children and their children?

What are we doing about this?

Personally, I must admit I have not done much about this issue really. Apart from trying not to use plastic bags when I shop or making sure the lights and air-conditioners are switched off if they are not of any use to anybody. For the future, I plan to buy a hybrid car for the family.

That’s about it!

I did try though to sell an idea to someone within the corridors of power about 2-3 years ago. But the guy yawned after 15 minutes. Okay, perhaps I was not good at selling the idea. Hence the reaction.

To my mind, why do we continue to build mega industrial, commercial and recreational parks? Can’t we, as a nation, do something different? I was thinking of an Environmental Park or a Green Technology Park. Call it whatever you like, but the idea is simple.

We take a huge swath of land – which we seem to have in abundance - somewhere. We turn that area into a park which only use alternative power/energy. Let that park be absolutely and independently sustained by powers generated from the wind, the sunlight, the water and whatever natural means that are within our possession.

Well, actually, we cannot exactly say that we possess those natural means. I mean how can we say that we possess the sunlight or the wind. But we can always claim to have the ability to exploit them if we have the knowledge and technology to harness those natural resources and turn them into power or energy.

So, let’s imagine this huge area of land. We build all the infrastructures which are necessary for all those people and corporations with the knowledge and technology to come here to try to exploit those natural resources to produce energy. We create an environment which is conducive for these people to do research, to experiment and to produce. We invite all of them to come here.

The locals can also join in. We do not lack knowledge. Our people have the expertise and specialist knowledge in all sorts of scientific areas. Our people have even managed to trace the Malay genome, for example (not that I know what genome is!). Bring them back here and let them research. And allow them to flourish in our own country.

So, let’s all of us imagine. This huge area of land is full of people, locals and internationals, doing research on alternative power and energy. Good, efficient and clean power and energy. It is for the good of the country. And the world at large.

And within that particular land area, people live in homes powered by these alternative energy and power. People drive vehicles using those alternative energy. People exchange ideas about these technologies, conduct forums and seminars about them – in halls and buildings powered by alternative energies – and sell them to the world.

I believe that will be a world’s first because really I don’t think any country in the world has ever done that. Even if there are, I don’t think they have done that at such a scale and at such level of governmental supports. We love to create world records, don’t we? We have the 1st astronaut who makes teh tarik in space. We have the tallest twin towers in the world. The biggest ketupat in the world. The longest shortest fattest thinnest roundest squarest whatever in the world. Why not the 1st Green City in the world?

I think we have enough of non-organic steel and brick jungles in Malaysia. We have Putrajaya. Which is nice but which does nothing for the future (except to those people who happened to own lands in that area before they were purchased by Putrajaya Holdings). Then we have the Iskandar Regional Development area in Johor. Soon we will have another 3000 acres of bricks and steel city somewhere in Sungai Buloh. Penang is also trying to have whatever city. Proton has its own city. And God knows what else. There may be compelling economics and socio-political reasons for all these cities. And they may be built for completely altruistic reason(s) too.

However, why not a Green City? Why don’t we do that? There are equally compelling economics and socio-political reasons for it to be built and developed I am sure. I mean, we could spend 250 million bucks on cows. Can’t we spend 250 million bucks or even substantially more for the future of our own children, our country and the world at large?

Let’s continue our hope and dream for the future.

Imagine this. Just imagine this. As far fetched as it may sound, why don’t we just let our mind to go on a journey.

In our journey, we have a technology available at our doorstep which could multiply a unit of diesel or fuel – even jet fuel – just by adding a unit of water to that fuel.

Yes. You read it right. Take a unit of diesel for example. Let’s say a litre of diesel. Add a litre of water to it. Pump that mixture through this gadget. And the result is 2 litres of diesel. Not only that. The two litres of diesel produced by this technology would have higher calorific value than the original diesel. It will also have a staggering 95% less sulphur than the original diesel. In addition, the final product will also have a higher cetane index than the original.

Most importantly, the final product will post 0.03 unit of carbon residue as compared to 0.3 unit from the original.

And all it takes to double the volume of diesel as well as achieve all these added benefits is just one similar unit of water. Just plain old clean water and nothing else.

Impossible isn’t it?

I mean, it is laughable. How can a unit of fuel be doubled up – not to mention with all the added benefits - by the addition of a similar unit of water?

However, we would forever be stuck with conventionality if we do not allow our mind to open and journey to the lands of impossibility. Who would, after all, have thought that today we could connect with a person in Los Angeles as of now with negligible cost? Did we even dream of e-mails, blogs, news portals, facebook, twitter, you-tube, flickr etc and the endless and almost limitless possibilities of the cyber-world 15 years ago?

What if I say as of now – as of writing this article – there is a technology available to do just that? And one of the senior management of the company having this technology is a Malaysian?

What if I say that the results of the lab tests of the final product confirm what I had just stated above? And the tester is none other than SIRIM QAS International Sdn Bhd?

And here’s the lab report.

What if I say that on 20th December 2011, a full physical demonstration of this technology had been successfully done in Port Klang? The advertorial in respect of this event can be read here.

I shudder to think that our media – mainstream and or otherwise – have completely failed to report this ground-breaking event. The fact that an advertorial had to be taken to publicise this event speaks volume of the hopeless state of newspapers and news-reporting agencies that we have to live with in Malaysia.

So, let’s us imagine. And in our imaginary journey, we could double up the volume of fuel just by adding water to it. And the final fuel burns better and more efficiently. And produces substantially less carbon too.

What will then happen to this world? What will the future hold? What will happen to the Middle-East; to the fat Arab Sheikhs; to the arm pedlars and war mongers; to the bankrupt politicians who have nothing to offer but only misplaced sense of patriotism and nationalism; to the Protons of the world; to Air-Asia and MAS of the world; to Gardenia bread; to RPK, Harris Ibrahim, Anwar Ibrahim, Putrajaya, Dr Mahathir, Kencana Petroleum, Petronas and all of us, the rest of the fossil fuel hungry maniacs of the world.

Would or wouldn’t this be a gift to the world?

Season's Greetings

2011-12-24T10:11:00.001+08:00

Here's to wishing everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Please be safe this festive season. May the new year bring all of us God's blessings, peace of mind, good health and a good life.

Dear Santa…

2011-12-16T10:47:00.001+08:00

Hi there.

Hope this letter finds you in excellent good health, amidst your busy schedules as Christmas, and hence, Christmas eve approaches.

I know. This letter is a bit late. But I hope it is okay with you. Actually, I had posted a hard copy of this letter in January this year using Pos Laju. Recently however, that letter was returned and marked “return to sender.”

I called up Pos Laju to find out the reason for this letter being so returned. This was how the conversation went (I hope you don’t mind. It’s in the original language. I am sure as a saint, you would understand it anyway).

Pos Laju girl: Hello, selamat pagi dan salam 1Malaysia Encik.

Me: Hi, selamat pagi.

PL girl: Eh, erm..Encik Melayu?

Me: Ya, saya.

PL girl: Assalamualaikum Encik. Boleh saya bantu?

Me: Mualaikummusalam. Saya sebenarnya nak tanya ni. Kenapa surat saya yang saya kirim bulan Januari lepas dikembalikan? Alamatnya Santa Claus, TheOnlyOne, North Pole.

PL girl: Oh, tunggu jap yer, saya cek.

…3 minutes later…

PL girl: Terima kasih Encik kerana menunggu. Erm…sebenarnyer Cik, surat Encik tu haram.

Me: Haram? Ada surat haram dan halal ke sekarang ni?

PL girl: Eh, ada Encik. Semua surat kena cek dulu halal ke haram. Kalau haram, kami takleh hantar Encik. Masuk neraka nanti. Surat kepada Santa Claus tu haram Encik. Sebab Santa Claus tu ialah seorang santo Kristian.

Me: Oh, itu kes berat tu Dik. Neraka jahanam ke?

PL girl: Ye Bang, eh, Encik. Neraka jahanam.

Me: You tau tak, perkataan “jahanam” tu sebenarnyer kan, adalah dari perkataan Yahudi “gehenna” you tau. Itu tempat dier orang bakar anak-anak lelaki dier orang dulu-dulu tau, kat Lembah Hinnom. Perkataan tu pun haram Dik. Yahudi tu!

PL girl: Iyer ker? Hamaigod.

Me: So, surat haram you all takleh hantar la yer?

PL girl: Takleh Bang, eh, Encik.

Me: Ada tak surat CIMB ker, Maybank atau RHB ker you all hantar?

PL girl: Ada gak. Kenapa?

Me: Surat-surat bank yang kenakan bunga atau faedah ni haram you all tau tak? Surat Bank Islam dan Muamalat jer yang you leh hantar. Itu halal.

PL girl: Yer ker Encik?

Me: Yer lah.

PL girl: Habis orang Islam yang makan gaji kat bank-bank tu gaji dierang halal ker haram Encik?

Me: Tak tahu ler saya. Kena tanya JAKIM lah. Kita orang biasa mana tahu. Okay, assalamualaikum.

PL girl: Wassalam.

I hope you wouldn’t be upset because you are deemed haram in my country. You are not alone however. Recently, a book on Lee Kuan Yew – yes, that guy who always ask you to turn Singapore into a continent every Christmas – was also deemed haram. Oh, a book on Doraemon had also be deemed haram before.

The only wonder I have is why is it that books like Hikayat Hang Tuah, Merong Mahawangsa, Sejarah Melayu and Hikayat Inderaputera or Anggun Cik Tunggal have not been declared haram. As you might know dear Santa, those folklore contain all sorts of stories about magic stones, super human powers, the ability to see the future and sprinkled with Hindu elements. Some of the books are even mandatory reading in our schools. Don’t you think they should be declared haram too yah?

While we are it, hey, haven’t you read what some Saudi clerics said recently? Yes. They said if the women are allowed to drive, there will not be any virgins left. Hahahah…this dear Santa, is definite proof that women love having sex while driving.

In Malaysia you see, a recent Durex survey revealed that 39% of women cheat their partner while only 33% of men do so. Perhaps that’s because women in Malaysia drive a lot, no?

Then we also have some dunggus somewhere declaring that women should not be left alone with bananas, cucumbers, zucchinis and the likes. Apparently they should be accompanied by their relatives or husband to confront such lustful objects of (sexual) desire.

I am now just afraid that we in Malaysia might just decide to catch up with these mullahs and start declaring soon that men should not be left alone with papayas and watermelons.

Oh well.

I know you are busy. So, let me be direct about what I want for Christmas this year.

Well, before that, allow me to explain why I believe in you, even though there is not an iota of evidence that you exist.

You see, I am Malay. I believe in Hang Tuah and the keris which he obtain by conning Taming Sari, the Javanese warrior. Well, the name of that keris is also Taming Sari, you see. Just quite why Hang Tuah did not change the name of the keris to Hang Tuah or Proton Saga or whatever after he took it away from Taming Sari is beyond me to comprehend.

I and almost all Malays believe in Hang Tuah and Taming Sari, even though there is not a shred of evidence, other than folklore storytelling, that they existed. And recently, one of our so called leaders even described the Internal Security Act as equivalent to the Taming Sari, which, according to him, is the weapon which was to protect our (the Malays) interests.

I know. David Cameron will never say that the English interests are to be protected by the Excalibur. And the Norwegian Prime Minister of course will not say that Thor’s hammer was supposed to protect Scandinavia. That’s because they are idiots who do not believe in their own folklore. I for one believe dear Santa, even though I am not Scandinavian, in the Valkyrie!

Anyway, I digress.

The reason for this e-letter is to tell you what I want for Christmas this year.

I would like to have, dear Santa, please please please, grovel grovel grovel, a tunnel which is not so smart, but which actually works.

I have been a really really good boy this year. So I think I am entitled to two requests. My next request is this. I read a report yesterday that TNB expects to record losses in the first quarter of 2012 as long as it has not yet received the cash from Petronas and the government. The report says that “the company's president and CEO Che Khalib says the cash-flow position of TNB is still in critical position until it receives the cash from the government and Petronas.”

Okay. Here’s my next request.

Please dear Santa, grant me the intelligence and wisdom to understand how a company which owns a monopoly business of providing an essential item to 27 million people plus all the investors and businesses in the whole country could record losses and have cash flow problems if the government or the nation’s cash cow, Petronas did not help?

I know. This will be hard for you dear Santa. But please at least try to grant me this one.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Tada!

p.s. Salam to all the elves.

Selamat Menyambut Maal Hijrah/Awal Muharram

2011-11-26T12:16:00.001+08:00

ARTiculations mengucapkan selamat menyambut Maal Hijrah/Awal Muharram kepada semua umat Islam dan selmat bercuti kepada semua sahabat se-Malaysia.

Hijrah itu saya rasa bukan sahaja meliputi penghijrahan fizikal daripada satu kawasan geografi ke satu kawasan geografi yang lain. Penghijrahan sifat, akal dan keperibadian daripada satu titik kebawahan kepada satu titik ketinggian jauh lebih penting dan dituntut oleh agama.

Moga kita semua mencapai penghijrahan yang bermakna.

Anti-apostasy law – the legal dynamics

2011-11-22T15:15:00.001+08:00

I wonder whether the proponents of anti-apostasy laws have given thoughts to various legal issues which will undoubtedly arise in the event anti-apostasy laws are passed.

First of all, article 11 of the Federal Constitution guarantees the right of every person to profess and practise his religion. Freedom of religion, as this article guarantees, is deemed to be so important and universal so much so that the Federal Constitution guarantees it for every person in Malaysia as opposed to just her citizens.

By contrast, freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble and the right to form associations are only guaranteed for Malaysian citizens. Such is the universality and fundamentality of freedom of religion that every person within Malaysia is guaranteed of that right.

The right to practise a religion is absolute. That right is not limited to the right to choose a religion but also the right to practise the religion of choice in accordance to the person’s belief and faith. In other word, under our Federal Constitution, one can not only choose a religion of his or her choice, but also to practise his or her religion freely, without any mullahs, monks, priests or prophets, real or otherwise, telling him how to do this and that.

Being so, anti-apostasy laws would run foul of article 11 as soon as it is passed. It is a non-starter. In legal jargon, it is void ab initio.

There are only two very narrow restraints which the Federal Constitution allows in so far as freedom of religion is concerned.

Firstly, laws may be passed to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. This means, a law may be passed for example, to prohibit anybody or group from propagating Christianity to Muslims. This provision however, does not allow any law to be passed to prevent a Muslim from leaving Islam or to punish Muslims for doing so.

Secondly, any person is not allowed to practise his or her religion in any way which may be contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. This simply means that if your religion requires you to slaughter five pigs at Dataran Merdeka every Friday at precisely 12.30pm, you cannot do so even though article 11 says you are free to practise your religion. Similarly, if your religion requires you to have sex with your daughter and your wife at the same time, you are not allowed to do so, although of course, it is open to you to argue that you may do so spiritually and not physically. (excuse me, I have to laugh…hahaha).

So, that’s about it. Quite how the proponents of anti-apostasy laws are planning to overcome this Constitutional hurdle to their beloved anti-apostasy laws is beyond me. I suppose, they would also seek to amend the Federal Constitution along with the anti-apostasy laws.

Assuming the Constitutionality issue is overcome, then comes the jurisdiction clanger. This is what I normally refer to as the judicial ping-pong or pass-the-bucket.

You see, in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia or anywhere else in the civilised world, every arm of the country’s administration would defend it’s jurisdiction and powers so fervently. Of course here in Malaysia, our judiciary, in the form of the highest Court of the land, ie the Federal Court, have always done it’s darndest best to disclaim its jurisdiction and powers. It’s almost funny really.

Whenever cases involving Islam come to our Federal Court, it will, without fail hold that it does not have the jurisdiction or power to hear such cases because they involve matters concerning Islam. Never mind the fact that the matter also involves serious and multiple Constitutional issues which have far-reaching consequences and ramifications on our society and nations. As long as the word Islam appears of the Court papers, the Federal Court will tremble in its pants and disclaim jurisdiction.

Sometimes, the Federal Court will cling to some technicalities in order to refuse hearing such hot potatoes of a case. See Shamala and the skirt of technicalities, as an illustration of this.

The oft-relied Constitutional provision for this disclaimer of jurisdiction is of course article 121 (1A), which says that our Courts shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.

So, assuming anti-apostasy laws are passed and a man is going to be charged for being an apostate. The first question is, in which Court is he supposed to be charged?

He cannot be charged in our civil Courts. Because quite simply, our civil Courts will say whether or not that man is an apostate would depend on whether he has really left Islam and that would be a matter for the Syariah Court to deal with. So, our civil Court will gladly disclaim jurisdiction.

And so, our guy would then have to be put in the black maria and driven to the Syariah Court. Okay, hold on to your seat guys, this is going to be one hell of a ride.

He is then produced before a Kadhi/Syariah Judge and charged. The charge might read as follows:

“Bahawa kamu, Jakim bin Jais, telah didapati tidak sembahyang Jumaat sebanyak tiga kali berturut-turut dan telah dengan itu keluar dari agama Islam dan dengan itu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 3 Akta Anti-Apostasi.”

(“That you, Jakim bin Jais, has been found not to perform the Friday prayer for three consecutive times and accordingly you have left the religion of Islam and accordingly has committed an offence under section 3 of the Anti-Apostasy Act.”)

So far so good.

Suddenly Encik Jakim says, “err…excuse me, item 1 of List II of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution says that Syariah Courts shall have jurisdiction only over persons professingthe religion of Islam. Since according to the charge I had left the religion of Islam, you, the Syariah Court, have no jurisdiction or power over me. Thank you very much and assalamu’alaikum.”

So, we have a situation where our civil Courts disclaiming jurisdiction and power because of article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution and the Syariah Courts having killed it’s own jurisdiction by the very charge that it is supposed to hear.

This jurisdiction issue, to me, cannot be cured or solved. Even if the Federal Constitution is amended to allow the Syariah Courts to have jurisdiction, such amendment would still run foul against the doctrine of equality and anti-discrimination on the ground of religion.

Will the rocket scientists who are proposing the anti-apostasy laws solve this conundrum please?

Assuming the aforesaid issues are solved and either our civil or Syariah courts are given the jurisdiction, have we ever ever imagined how the case is going to proceed?

Let’s get back to Encik Jakim’s case. Finally, after the Federal Constitution and all sorts of other laws are amended to charge him, he is charged before the Syariah Court.

Encik Jakim then says, “okay, you are accusing me to be an apostate, which means I have left Islam. So, for me to leave Islam, I have to be a Muslim first. You have to prove that I was a Muslim in order to prove that I have left Islam. Can you tell me what is Islam and what is not?”

Oh uh…

During an enquiry headed by Justice Munir under the Punjab Act II 1954, Justice Munir had set out to establish just that, ie, what is Islam or who is a Muslim.

He then sets out to ask, what in the opinion of several ulamaks, were the "irreducible minimum conditions which, a person must satisfy to be entitled to be called a Muslim." Here is some of their answers.

Quote:

"Maulana Abul Hasanat Muhammad Ahmad Qadri, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulamai- Pakistan —

“Q.— What is the definition of a Muslim ?

A — (1) He must believe in the Unity of God.

(2) He must believe in the prophet of Islam to be a true prophet as well as in all other prophets who have preceded him,

(3) He must believe in the Holy Prophet of Islam as the last of the prophets (khatam-un-nabiyin).

(4) He must believe in the Qur’an as it was revealed by God to the Holy Prophet of Islam.

(5) He must believe as binding on him the injunctions of the Prophet of Islam.

(6) He must believe in the qiyamat.

Q.—Is a tarik-us-salat a Muslim ?

A.—Yes, but not a munkir-us-salat”

Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan —

“Q.— Please define a Muslim ?

A.—A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet. Any person who possesses these two qualifications is entitled to be called a Muslim without his being required to believe in anything more or to do anything more.”

Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami —

“Q.—Please define a Muslim ?

A.—A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).

Q.—Is a mere profession of belief in these articles sufficient to entitle a man to call himself a Musalman and to be treated as a Musalman in an Islamic State ?

A.—Yes.

Q.—If a person says that he believes in all these things, does any one have a right to question the existence of his belief ?

A.—The five requisites that I have mentioned above are fundamental and any alteration in anyone of these articles will take him out of the pale of Islam.”

Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir—

“Q.—Please define a Muslim ?

A.—I consider a man to be a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, La Ilaha Illalah-o-Muhammad-ur-Rasulullah, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.”

Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore—

“Q.—Please give the definition of a Musalman ?

A.—The word ‘Musalman’ is a Persian one. There is a distinction between the word ‘Musalman’ which is a Persian word for Muslim and the word ‘momin’. It is impossible for me to give a complete definition of the word ‘momin’. I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophethood of theambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.”

Hafiz Kifayat Hussain, Idara-i-Haquq-i-Tahaffuz-i-Shia—

“Q.—Who is a Musalman?

A.—A person is entitled to be called a Musalman if he believes in (1) tauheed, (2)nubuwwat and (3) qiyamat. These are the three fundamental beliefs which a person must profess to be called a Musalman. In regard to these three basic doctrines there is no difference between the Shias and the Sunnies. Besides the belief in these three doctrines, there are other things called ‘zarooriyat-i-din’ which a person must comply with in order to be entitled to be called aMusalman. These will take me two days to define and enumerate. But as an illustration I might state that the respect for the Holy Book, wajoob-i-nimaz, wajoob-i-roza, wajoob-i-hajj-ma’a-sharait, and other things too numerous to mention, are among the ‘zarooriyat-i-din’ ”

Maulana Abdul Hamid Badayuni, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan :

“Q.—Who is a Musalman according to you ?

A.—A person who believes in the zarooriyat-i-din is called a momin and everymomin is entitled to be called a Musalman.

Q.—What are these zarooriyat-i-din ?

A.—A person who believes in the five pillars of Islam and who believes in the rasalatof our Holy Prophet fulfils the zarooriyat-i-din.

Q.—Have other actions, apart from the five arakan, anything to do with a man being a Muslim or being outside the pale of Islam?

(Note—Witness has been explained that by actions are meant those rules of moral conduct which in modern society are accepted as correct.)

A.—Certainly.

Q.—Then you will not call a person a Muslim who believes in arakan-ikhamsa and the rasalat of the prophet but who steals other peoples’ things, embezzles property entrusted to him, has an evil eye on his neighbour’s wife and is guilty of the grossest ingratitude to his benefector?

A.—Such a person, if he has the belief already indicated, will be a Muslim despite all this”.

Maulana Muhammad Ali Kandhalvi, Darush-Shahabia, Sialkot —

“Q.—Please define a Musalman?

A.—A person who in obedience to the commands of the prophet performs all thezarooriyat-i-din is a Musalman.

Q.—Can you define zarooriyat-i-din ?

A.—Zarooriyat-i-din are those requirements which are known to every Muslim irrespective of his religious knowledge.

Q.—Can you enumerate zarooriyat-i-din ?

A.—These are too numerous to be mentioned. I myself cannot enumerate thesezarooriyat. Some of the zarooriyat-i-din may be mentioned as salat, saum, etc.”

Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi —

“Q.—Who is a Musalman?

A.—There are two kinds of Musalmans, a political (siyasi) Musalman and a real (haqiqi) Musalman. In order to be called a political Musalman, a person must:

(1) believe in the Unity of God,

(2) believe in our Holy Prophet being khatam-un-nabiyin, i.e., ‘final

authority’ in all matters relating to the life of that person,

(3) believe that all good and evil comes from Allah,

(4) believe in the Day of Judgment,

(5) believe in the Qur’an to be the last book revealed by Allah,

(6) perform the annual pilgrimage to Mecca,

(7) pay the zaka’at,

(8) say his prayers like the Musalmans,

(9) observe all apparent rules of Islami mu’ashira, and

(10) observe the fast (saum).

If a person satisfies all these conditions he is entitled to the rights of a full citizen of an Islamic State. If any one of these conditions is not satisfied, the person concerned will not be a political Musalman.

(Again said) It would be enough for a person to be a Musalman if he merely professes his belief in these ten matters irrespective of whether he puts them into practice or not. In order to be a real Musalman, a person must believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.

Q.—Will you say that only the real Musalman is ‘mard-i-saleh’ ?

A.—Yes.

Q.—do we understand you aright that in the case of what you have called a political (siyasi) Musalman, belief alone is necessary, while in the case of a haqiqi Musalman there must not only be belief but also action?

A.—No, you have not understood me aright. Even in the case of a political (siyasi) Musalman action is necessary but what I mean to say is that if a person does not act upon the belief that is necessary in the case of such a Musalman, he will not be outside the pale of a political (siyasi) Musalman.

Q.—If a political (siyasi) Musalman does not believe in things which you have stated to be necessary, will you call such a person be-din ?

A.—No, I will call him merely be-amal”.

The definition by the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiya, Rabwah, in its written statement is that a Muslim is a person who belongs to the ummat of the Holy Prophet and professes belief in kalima-i-tayyaba." End quote.

Justice Munir then concluded:

"Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else."

Encik Jakim then asked which test of “Muslimness” or “Islamness” that is going to be adopted by the prosecution?

After a long and tedious trial, the Court might be ready to declare that Encik Jakim bin Jais has committed apostasy and ought to be punished.

Just before the Court does so, Encik Jakim says, “do you know that under the Amman Message, which is endorsed by Malaysia, as a member of the OIC, you are prohibited from making a declaration of apostasy against another Muslim?”

This takes Encik Jakim and the learned Syariah Judge to the Amman Message. It says, among others, the followings:-

"Circa 2004, H.M. King Abdullah II of Jordan sent the following three questions to 24 of the most senior religious scholars from all around the world representing all the branches and schools of Islam: (1) Who is a Muslim? (2) Is it permissible to declare someone an apostate (takfir)? (3) Who has the right to undertake issuing fatwas (legal rulings)?

Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world's leading Islamic scholars 'Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the 'Three Points of the Amman Message'):

They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash'arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.
Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.
Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam."

(The full message can be viewed here).

It continues:-

"These three points were unanimously adopted by all the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005. And over a period of one year from July 2005 to July 2006, the Three Points were also unanimously adopted by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies, culminating with the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006. In total, over 500 leading Muslim scholars worldwide unanimously endorsed the Amman Message and its Three Points."

Malaysia is of course an OIC member. In fact, Tun Abdullah, while being our PM, was the Chairman of OIC. Among the 500 "leading Muslim scholars" who "endorsed the Amman Message" are:-

H.E. Dato’ Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi

Prime Minister

Dr. (sic) Anwar Ibrahim
Former Deputy Prime Minister

Dato’ Dr. Abdul Hamid Othman
Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister

Prof. Dr. Kamal Hasan
President of the Islamic International University, Kuala Lumpur

Prof. Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali
Dean of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation

Mr. Shahidan Kasem
First Minister of Perlis State, Malaysia

Mr. Khayri Jamal Al-Din (sic) - (presumably this means YB Khairy Jamaluddin)
Deputy Chairman for the Youth Sector, the United Malays National Organisation

Dr. Salih Qadir Karim Al-Zanki
International Islamic University

(See the full list here).

I think Encik Jakim would be given an acquittal after that.

The Curse of Eve - a bedtime story*

2011-11-10T08:41:00.001+08:00

By The Special Correspondent

*This awesome piece was written by The Special Correspondent, a very special personal friend of mine, for the magazine Homme, which in turn published it some time back. I would like to share this with all of you. Many thanks to The Special Correspondent for his consent for the republication of this story here. For the record, The Special Correspondent is part man part computer chip who owes his life to the chip more than anything else. He is currently at the tail end of his mid-life crisis but is fast sliding into an old life crisis. According to him, he had had nine near-death experiences. One thing for sure though, he can only count up to one.

Our story begins thus, as do all bedtime stories …

Once upon a time, far, far away, there lived a poor sod called Adam. God made him from dust. He was immortal. Our hero lived in a beautiful garden called Eden. In the garden there was a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If Adam ate its fruit, he would know the difference between … yes, good and evil. And that would be bad, or must have been, because God told Adam that if he ate from it, he would surely die (Genesis 2:16). Our hero got lonely. So God created Woman from his rib to be his ‘helper’. God loved them. He made them in his image, perfect and sinless. They would never be ill, never be harmed and never die. And God was a real sport when he said, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:27).

And how could they not live happily ever after? …

I must pause here. There is a tiny dispute of fact. This tale in Genesis of the Christian God, his Adam and Eve, suggests that Eve was the first woman. However, a Jewish book called The Alphabet of Ben Sira (circa 8^th Century A.D.) tells the story of Lilith; that she and not Eve, was Adam's first wife, created at the same time and from the same dust. Claiming to be thus created equal, Lilith refused to sleep “under him”. This was a problem for our hero who, ever the ladies man, insisted,

“I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.”

Lilith freaked. She flew away into the air where she ‘knew’ many demons, spawning hundreds of baby demons a day. And thus was coined the oath “I wouldn’t sleep with you if you were the only man in the whole universe”. Adam sobbed to God, “O Sovereign of the Universe, the woman you gave me has run away”. Oh boo hoo. But God was good to Adam, so he sent three angels after her. They threatened to drown her if she refused to return to him. “O piss off” she must have said, because they did. So God, perhaps regretting Free Will a little, made Eve, but this time from Adam’s rib to prevent her from leaving him.[1]

I readily accept this version as Genesis 1:27 suggests a woman before Eve, but more so because Lilith sounds really hot. Despite Lilith, the consensus is that Eve represents Woman and that She did not come into existence in her own right but only to fulfill man’s needs. This is significant, as we shall see.

Where was I?

Ah yes. There was a serpent in the garden who was actually Satan (Revelations 12:9). Before he lost the War in Heaven, he was called Lucifer, God’s first and most beautiful angel, the Angel of Light. The Morning Star. He felt that although Adam and Eve would be eternally happy in paradise, they would also be eternally ignorant. So he persuaded Eve to eat the forbidden fruit for then her eyes would be opened, and like God, she would have knowledge. She ate. The now wicked Eve then seduced poor Adam into taking a bite himself. Immediately his eyes were opened. With all this knowledge, he realised he was butt naked and so put on an apron (Genesis 3:7).

But then he heard God walking in Eden in the cool of the day. ‘O bummer’, he must have thought and he hid. But God called for him and Adam said, “I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” (Genesis 3:10). (What happened to the apron?).

God figured it out (well, of course He would) and asked, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” Adam blamed Eve, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” (Genesis 3:12). Eve blamed the snake, “The serpent beguiled me, and I ate (Genesis 3:13).

God didn’t buy it. The serpent got off lightly though, probably because it was Satan and he was only doing his job. But it was off on its belly for the rest of its life. And to be hated by Eve and her children (oh that must have hurt).

Adam was cursed (for listening to evil wifey, of course), (Genesis 3:17-19):

“And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it’, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

But Eve’s curse was worse (Genesis 3:16):

“To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

And God banished them from Heaven, to the East of Eden. And Death did come to Adam and Eve.

The Christians, in another one of their cool euphemisms like ‘the Rapture’, call it ‘the Fall’. I think ‘the Almighty Cock-Up’ would be more appropriate. But I don’t get what’s so awful about knowledge. Certain Gnostic sects actually honour the snake for bringing knowledge to Adam and Eve. But it is the treatment of Eve that is truly baffling.

Her curse is two-fold. The first was increased pain[2] during childbirth and in raising children.[3] There is also the post natal extra fat, wider hips, stretch marks and of course, the sag. And children will always find ways to break a mother’s heart. Coincidence? Perhaps not. Women have more pain in childbirth than any other creature.

God 1, Woman 0.

And the Puritans took the Curse very seriously. In 16^th and 17^th century Europe, midwives were tried and burned at the stake as witches for administering any form of pain relief. There was an outcry from the Church when chloroform was discovered and used in childbirth by Sir James Simpson in the early 19^th century. It was seen as an unholy attempt to rebel against God’s curse on Eve. Even Queen Victoria was heavily criticized for having used anaesthesia with the birth of her 8^th child.

But Eve’s second curse is the real cracker: “… yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” I confess I am thoroughly enjoying the very suggestion of a man’s divine right to rule over his wife. After all, Adam did name her Woman because she was created of man (Genesis 2:18-23). This is no slip of the quill; Genesis earlier recognised the headship of man before the Fall (Genesis 2:18 and 2:22). This means that God’s later ruling ‘he shall rule over you’ cannot be a punishment in itself and is accordingly, simply the way things are. So to obey God’s edict the wife must submit to her husband, I surmise with glee. What’s worse is ‘desire’ is interpreted as Woman’s need to ‘control’[4] her husband. This is a curse because her need can never be fulfilled, as man’s headship is an edict of God that cannot be usurped.

God 2, Woman 0.

St. Paul himself did not accept Woman’s control over man. He said (I Timothy 2:11-15), “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”

The Twentieth Century New Testament provides a truly brave translation of this clause, “But women will find their salvation in motherhood”. Try telling Liz Taylor that childbearing and submission to her husband (singular) are her salvation.

But the puritans condemn Eve for the consequence of her deeds. This is what they say. She disobeyed God and seduced Adam to follow suit. Adam was then punished because he ‘listened’ to her over God. Consequently, God cursed the Earth. Their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, was bequeathed to all their descendants. To absolve Man of this ‘original sin’, God sacrificed Jesus, his son in Christian dogma. (Umm, why God did not simply forgive us all without crucifying Jesus is not for me to ask.)

So Eve caused Adam’s sin, the original sin of all Man, the death of Christ and the end of the world. It’s like blaming the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil for a tornado in Texas.[5] All butterflies should have their wings removed and like Woman, find salvation in raising larvae.

The reality, however, is that women are attributed with the qualities of the Biblical Eve, unworthy, manipulative and filled with deception and guile.[6] As an example, see Ecclesiastes 7:26-28: “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare ... while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all”.

Orthodox Jewish men in their morning prayers recite the following benediction to Yahweh, “Blessed be [God] King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman.”[7] And another: “Praised be [God] that he has not created me a gentile. Praised be [God] that he has not created me a woman. Praised be [God] that he has not created me an ignoramus.” Equating Woman with gentiles is a little harsh.

But there are limits to this sexist Biblical nonsense. The joke ends with the original Protestant, Martin Luther, if he actually[8] said: “If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there”.

Ironically, there is no Quranic condemnation of the Muslim Eve and her purdahpracticing daughters. In the Islamic version of our story (2:31-36), (7:19-25), (20:115-123), Allah never blamed Eve for Adam’s sin and neither Eve nor her daughters were cursed with the misery depicted in the Bible. The Hadiths may say otherwise, but not the Quran.

The real disappointment is Adam, or at least the Genesis/Ben Sira version. He is a wuss. He was given Lilith but went whinging to God when she left him for demons. He was then given Eve. But he could not even say ‘No’ to her for God’s sake. He hid behind aprons and even blamed Eve for disobeying God. Clearly, he was no match for Woman. He was conned by Eve and bollocked by Lillith; but in her defence, Lilith cannot be blamed for refusing to spend eternity with a poof like Adam.

God, of course, is far more formidable. So after more than 3,000 years, Christian puritans must be appalled at Woman’s late charge in the 21^st century in meeting her Curse.

The epidural has all but rendered pain in childbirth obsolete. God 2, Woman 1. And in the modern home, her control over her domesticated husband (inexplicably called a pussy) is all but complete. God 2, Woman 2. And even without a Hilary win, we have women prime ministers and presidents who, despite St. Paul, rule over nations of men. God 2, Woman 3. Oh ... and what was that Curse again?

Thus endeth the story. Oh, I almost forgot. … And Woman lived happily ever after.

[1] This is the version of the Armenian writer Avetik Isahakyan.

[2] There has been some argument about the translation: the word translated as ‘pain’ is the Hebrew etzev. The Christian apologist will argue that to ensure consistency, etzev means ‘toil’ as is used in relation to Adam in Genesis 3:17 and not ‘pain’. This remains a minority view. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible to translate etzev in Genesis 3:16 made by 70 scholars in 300 B.C. uses the Greek wordlupê, meaning also pain of body.

[3] The curse could not have been of actually having children as the earlier command was “be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:27).

[4] In the same sense as in Genesis 4:7: “[Sin's] desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

[5] See Edward Lorenz’s lecture in 1972 for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[6] The following quotes are taken from the controversial article Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition, The Myth and The Reality by Sherif Abdel Azim, Ph.D. But see the rebuttal in A Response to Sherif Abdel Azeem's Eve's Fault and Eve's Legacy by Anthony Wales.

[7] Daily Prayer Book. (Phillip Birnbaum translator) (NewYork: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1977) pg. 18.

[8] See The Gospel According to Woman by Karen Armstrong for the source of this quote.

Compulsion in Islam?

2011-10-28T13:57:00.001+08:00

With all due respect to Associate Professor Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah - a well known academic, ulamak and preacher in Malaysia - I must admit of being astounded by his remark at a forum entitled 'Hudud: Its dilemma and implementation' organised by Malay-language daily Sinar Harian in Shah Alam on 25th October 2011. (His speech at the said forum can be viewed on YouTube.)

At around the 9th minute of the video, Dr Ridhuan strongly asserted that Islamic law has to be implemented by force and there is no other way to educate the non-Muslims on Islamic laws than by force. Dr Ridhuan added that the most opportune time for “us” to do so was after the 13th May 1969 incident and lamented the fact that “we” had let that opportunity gone.

During the speech, Dr Ridhuan lamented the fact that non-Muslims, especially the Chinese, have a negative view of Islamic state and hudud generally. Speaking from experience, as a Chinese, Dr Ridhuan insisted that he knows the Chinese’s attitude towards Islam and that that attitude has not changed.

Firstly, I must confess that I am more than a little bit perplexed by Dr Ridhuan’s attempt to connect the racial riot of 13th May 1969 with the idea of an Islamic state and the implementation of hudud or Islamic laws in Malaysia.

The riot of 13th May 1969, as far as I know, had nothing to do with the desire by any particular section of our society, including the Muslims/Malays, for an Islamic state or for the implementation of Islamic laws in Malaysia.

If the mainstream version of the riot were to be believed, that riot was caused by the economic imbalances between the Malays and the non-Malays, giving rise to a deep and seething anger between the two sections of the society culminating in racial hatred. This was sparked by the unprecedented victory of the DAP in the general election immediately preceding the riot and the subsequent victory march by the DAP. The whole situation was worsen by the election campaigns which were full of racial rhetoric and overtone and the killing of some Chinese suspected to be communists.

Never have I read about the riot being anything about Islam, Islamic state or the implementation of Islamic laws. Even the non-mainstream version of the riot has omitted mentioning anything about those issues being the possible cause of the riot.

As neither Islam, Islamic state nor Islamic laws was part of the catalyst or cause of the riot, how could Dr Ridhuan surmise that the most “opportune of time” to implement Islamic laws in Malaysia was after the riot? There is an obvious lack of cause, causation and result here. I mean, Dr Ridhuan may very well say that 31st August 1957 would be the most opportune time for all of us to choose Islamic state as the governing model of our nation. I would certainly understand that remark because that was the starting point of Persekutuan Tanah Melayu as an independent state. But to relate the choice of an Islamic state as a model “after” the riot of 13th May 1969 is as perplexing as any suggestion that the most opportune time to implement Islamic laws in Malaysia would be just after the Bersih rally, for example.

Regardless of the lack of any tangible connection between the May 13th riot and the issue of Islamic state, Dr Ridhuan had, by his remark, obviously – or even perhaps, inadvertently – exposed the notion, which could be popular among the neo-right winged-nationalist in contemporary Malaysia that the May 13th riot was “won” by the Malays or Muslims.

Premised on this notion of a “victory” being achieved by the Malays/Muslims during the May 13th riot, Dr Ridhuan quite obviously thought that the Malays/Muslims, as the victors, could have imposed an Islamic state model on Malaysia or implement hudud/Islamic laws as the laws of Malaysia after the said “victory.” Conversely, the non-Muslims, particularly the Chinese, as the “vanquished”, would not have been able to resist such forceful imposition of Islam on them at that point of time.

That, to my mind, would have been the natural conclusion of Dr Ridhuan’s remark.

With all due respect to Dr Ridhuan’s scholarly position, I view that with sadness.

The May 13th riot has no victors. Malaysia as a nation, society and people were all losers on that fateful day and from that dark blot on our history. May 13th 1969 was an absolute failure of all of us as a people. It was a day when we had left our power to reason and rationalise and let our primordial kinship and tribalistic emotions to take over. It was a day when we discarded civility and civilisation and opted for barbarism.

Victory on the May 13th riot and its aftermath, in my opinion, could only be measured by our collective ability and willingness, as a people and a nation, to learn the lessons brought about by the riot and to take measures to address the causes which sparked the riot. Anything else is a failure.

The notion that the Malays/Muslims could have done anything, including imposing an Islamic state model during its aftermath, is a perversion and represents an almost nihilistic view of the riot, its causes and consequences. It is yet another unwelcome addition to the plethora of abuses to which the Malay psyche has been subjected all this while. As a Malay Muslim, I find it absolutely objectionable.

Dr Ridhuan’s lamentation that the Chinese, particularly, has a negative view of Islam and that their negative attitude towards Islam has not changed while at the same time asserting that hudud or Islamic laws must be implemented by force is, with respect, the peak of irony.

It is an irony because one of the main reason why the non-Muslims throughout the world have such a dim view of Islam is answered by Dr Ridhuan himself in his statement that Islamic laws should be implemented by force, regardless of any party’s objection to it.

To many, the attitude of some of our ulamaks and mullahs are reflective of Islam’s supposed intolerance of others, most particularly other faiths and not to mention cultures, breed and creed.

If Dr Ridhuan would stop and think at the repercussion of his assertion as such, he would realise that by making that assertion, he had managed to isolate millions of non-Muslims from the beauty of Islam, a faith that was premised on absolute respect for each other. Dr Ridhuan would do well to realise that the Kharijite-ist approach towards maintaining Islam as the one and only faith does not bode well with Islam’s core teaching of mutual existence, respect and co-operation.

If we were to force the implementation of Islamic laws in Malaysia, by extension, why don’t we, as Muslims, force everyone to convert to Islam then, if I may ask? The answer is provided by God Himself, when in the Quran He says:-

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Quran 2:256)

Then He says again:

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)

Dr Ridhuan insisted that as a Chinese coming from a family who are staunch non-believers of Islam, he knew how the Chinese feel about Islam. His disdain for the parties whom he always describes as “ultra-kiasu” is well known. Dr Ridhuan may have his own deeply personal reason for that. It is not for me, or for anybody else, to judge him for that. But surely Dr Ridhuan should not let his disdain prevent him from being just. The Quran says:

“O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do.” Quran 5:8)

Muslims and non-Muslims must be made to know and realise that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent as a “mercy for all the world” (Quran 21:107). He was not sent to force or compel anybody towards Islam or Allah. God says:

“Nothing is (incumbent) on the Messenger but to deliver (the message), and Allah knows what you do openly and what you hide.” (Quran 5:99)

“So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to God, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God’s sight are all of His servants.” (Quran 3:20)

Why then do we want to force Islam on anybody? Isn’t that un-Islamic?

The Quran repeatedly tells Muslims not to interfere with the affairs of non-Muslims. It also implored us to always be fair and just to them. Even when we argue with them, we are supposed to be civil and maintain good manners.

“So if they come to you, (O Muhammad), judge between them or turn away from them. And if you turn away from them never will they harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, God loves those who act justly.” (Quran 5:42)

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way.” (Quran 16:125)

Throughout Islamic expansionism, non-Muslims, particularly the Christians and Jews, have always been treated with respect. No effort was made to force them to follow the Islamic way of life. It is exactly this tolerant approach which had driven even Western historian to conclude without bias:

‘The tolerance of Muhammad towards the Jews and Christians was truly grand; the founders of other religions that appeared before him, Judaism and Christianity in particular, did not prescribe such goodwill. His caliphs followed the same policy, and his tolerance has been acknowledged by skeptics and believers alike when they study the history of the Arabs in depth.’ ( LeBon, Gustav, ‘Arab Civilization,’ p. 128)

‘The Muslims alone were able to integrate their zeal for their own religion with tolerance for followers of other religions. Even when they bore swords into battle for freedom for their religion to spread, they left those who did not desire it free to adhere to their own religious teachings.’ (Robertson, as Quoted in Aayed, Saleh Hussain, ‘Huquq Ghayr al-Muslimeen fi Bilad il-Islam,’ p. 26).

Yet, every day we hear of mullahs wanting to impose this and that, not only on fellow Muslims, but also non-Muslims. In Malaysia, in newspapers and on the internet, non-Muslims read all sorts of accusations being made against them on a daily basis by none other than people of high authority. In articles written on blogs and comments made on such articles, curses are thrown at non-Muslims, names are called and various threats are made against them, needlessly.

Civility and dare I say, the way of Islam have been thrown out of the window by Muslims themselves.

Is it then any wonder why non-Muslims all over the world nowadays view Islam with negativity as well as prejudice?

Note to potential commentators: Please be civil and nice in your comments. Inappropriate comments in any way, will be deleted.

PAkS – Parti Anti-konsert Se-Malaysia

2011-10-25T13:26:00.001+08:00

I am just aghast. No. Correction. I am just pissed off.

Is there nothing else that PAS Youth do other than objecting against concerts? What is PAS Youth’s take on our ballooning national debts? What does PAS Youth think of the Euro-zone problems and its potential impact on global economy in general and on Malaysia, in particular?

Elton John is coming to Malaysia. As he is apparently gay, PAS Youth thinks that his concert is “incompatible” with Malaysian culture.

Pahang PAS Youth chairman Shahril Azman Abdul Halim was quoted by the Malaysian Insider as saying:

“The authorities are aware that hedonism or excessive entertainment akin to poison is spreading fast among Muslim youths “……..“It is this culture that brings the downfall of morality in a society and encourage activities such as promiscuity drinking fornication and also cause them to neglect their religious duties.”

Going to a concert is a hedonistic act? And it causes a “downfall of morality.” Ah, of course, going to a concert also causes promiscuity, drinking and fornication. What else is new?

I suppose the father who raped his 2 month old baby son is an avid concert goer. And all those kids in Kelantan who fornicate are also avid concert goer. And those young girls who kill their babies are also avid concert goers too I suppose. And half of the male population in Malaysia would turn gay and start ramming each other’s ass once Elton John touches down at KLIA.

I am sorry, but will Elton John sing on stage or perform a homosexual intercourse act on stage and ask concert-goers to join him while in Malaysia?

I remember the day Michael Jackson came to Malaysia. Boy, after the concert, all of us were holding our crotch on the streets!

What I really hate about some people, politicians and political parties is their self-righteousness and holier-than-thou attitude.

You have your values and others have theirs. I have mine as well. Can you all just please respect me and my personal space please? Why must you try to impose your values on me and others? Have I tried to impose my values on you?

Oh, there was this guy on twitter who ventured to ask me why I am supporting homosexuality. I suppose when one is blinkered one would be justified to be stupid eh? The point is the concert, not the homosexuality, get it?

There are hundreds of stateless street kids around Chow Kit area in KL. The 10 year old sister will be taking care of the 5 year old brother while their mother is earning some money with a customer in a small room somewhere near. And all of us live in complete apathy to their problem. And their problem is basic, real basic.

PAS Youth. That is hedonistic. What are you all doing about it?

I just wish all this mullahism crap would disappear from Malaysia and her political landscape. I suppose UiTM would get a Nobel peace prize first before that happens.

Happy Deepavali

2011-10-25T10:48:00.001+08:00

Here’s to wishing all Malaysians of the Hindu faith Happy Deepavali, the day when lights triumphed over darkness and good over evil. May the light continue to be shone upon all of us. God bless.

American Pie Revisited*

2011-10-21T15:35:00.001+08:00

*originally published at Navel Gazing and published here on August 23rd 2010 and republished for new readers/followers of this blog.

“I heard he sang a good song,
I heard he had a style
And so I came to see him,
To listen for a while
And there he was this young boy,
A stranger to my eyes”

Those are part of the lyrics from Killing Me Softly, popularised by Roberta Flack. It was written by Charles Fox and Norman Gimbel. Originally, it was recorded by Lori Lieberman but it was the Roberta Flack version which had thrust this beautiful song into pop folklore, sweeping the world by winning 3 grammys including the coveted “Song Of The Year” award.

I like the song. The soulful Roberta Flack version is always touching and emotive, to say the least. And the recent Fugees’ version (featuring va va voom Larryn Hill), despite it’s hip hop proximity and influences, is also one to be savoured.

Not many people know but this song was inspired by a poem written by Lieberman titled “Killing Me Softly With His Blues”. Lieberman wrote that poem after watching a then unknown singer performing. This particular singer later became a famous folk rock singer who wrote one of the best, and the most enigmatic folk rock song of all time. Who was he? Who was this singer whom Lieberman saw and who was:-

“Strumming my pain with his fingers
Singing my life with his words
Killing me softly with his song
Killing me softly with his song
Telling my whole life with his words
Killing me softly with his song”

That singer was the then unknown Don McLean. The singer/composer who would later penned hits such as the beautiful, and yet disturbing and haunting “Vincent”, a tribute to non other than Vincent Van Gogh. Just consider this:

“And when no hope was left inside
On that starry, starry night
You took your life as lovers often do -
But I could've told you, Vincent:
This world was never meant
For one as beautiful as you.”

McLean’s lyrics are always filled with emotive imageries and metaphors, and hauntingly beautiful multi layered colours. Along this line, American Pie was composed, recorded and released in 1971.

The song bucked the then prevailing trend in that it was more than 8 minute long. Many among the production people were pessimistic about the song when McLean wanted to record it. But of course, the rest, as they say, is history.

The song became some kind of an anthem among folk rock fans across the globe. It is, for example, listed in the Song Of The Century education project at number 5 song of the 20^th century. But what actually interested many fans about the song is its lyrics and their meaning.

I must say that in terms of enigmatic lyrics, American Pie must rank up there together with Procol Harum’s haunting “A Whiter Shade Of Pale” and Robert Plant’s gibberish laden “Stairway To Heaven”. Plant’s “Stairway To Heaven” is a heavyweight in itself, being a 6-minute something epic rock with arrangement so complicated that it had even been compared with a Beethoven’s piece.

Jimmy Page’s riffs in that song is among the best riffs in any rock songs ever. In my opinion, that riffs are almost similar in stature as that of David Gilmore’s riffs in “Comfortably Numb” (voted by Rolling Stones Magazine as the best rock riffs ever). The only thing which would have made Stairway To Heaven even better, to me, is a 2 minute co da with an inter play between Page’s acoustic guitar and his monster Les Paul! I wish!

In contrast, Procol Harum’s number was shorter in length. It remains to date as one of the most frequently covered song in history although Annie Lennox’s cover would, in my opinion, rank as the best. The lyrics were enigmatic, to say the least. Plant’s lyrics in Stairway To Heaven were seemingly gibberish. In fact, it is a known fact that Plant himself did not like the song, refusing to perform it live. Once, he famously, or rather infamously, referred to the song as “that little wedding song”! Blasphemy!

I digressed, yes. It’s hard not to when I am talking about something which I absolutely love.

Okay, back to American Pie. Lyrically, American Pie became the “greatest mystery in rock and roll history”. Such was the enigma and mystery of the lyrics that the song spawned hundreds of interpretations while Don McLean maintained a dignified silence about its meaning save for admitting that the song did refer to Buddy Holly and that the album American Pie was dedicated to him. On August 3, 1993, a letter was published where McLean among others said:

"As you can imagine, over the years I've been asked many times to discuss and explain my song "American Pie" [June25]. I have never discussed the lyrics, but have admitted to the Holly reference in the opening stanzas. I dedicated the album American Pie to Buddy Holly as well in order to connect the entire statement to Holly in hopes of brining about an interest in him, which subsequently did occur... Sorry to leave you all on your own like this but long ago I realized that songwriters should make their statements and move on, maintaining a dignified silence."

And so, it is well established that American Pie did refer to Buddy Holly. “American Pie” to me refers to the America of the old days, where people would live in happiness and peace, days where greed and power were not too important, days of innocence where people would be listening to their favorite music and danced in the gym, days where Richie Valen and Buddy Holly ruled. The song is a study in rock and roll music development in America intertwined with a social study of the American psyche of the late 50s running through the 60s, paying attention to how things changed after a certain date, the turning point being “the day the music died”, namely, the day Buddy Holly died in an air crash in 1959 together with Richie Valen (as portrayed in the movie La Bamba) and the Big Bopper.

"But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died
So bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my chevy to the levee
But the levee was dry
And them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singing this will be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die."

To McLean, the day Buddy Holly died marked a shift of some sorts in the history of rock and roll in particular and in the socio-political scene of America generally. America of old was portrayed in various imageries and metaphors which are filled with innocence and nonchalant attitude.

“Well, I know that you're in love with him
'Cause I saw you dancin' in the gym
You both kicked off your shoes
Man, I dig those rhythm and blues

I was a lonely teenage broncin' buck
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck”

All these would change, quite irretrievably on the day the music died.

“But I knew I was out of luck
The day the music died”

Thereafter he traced the emergence of Bob Dylan, a fact which was juxtaposed against the decline in popularity of Elvis Presley (I think):

“Oh, and while the King was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown”

It also contained some vague reference to the cover of Dylan’s album titled “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan” where Dylan posed in a red windbreaker ala James Dean. It would be remembered that James Dean wore a red windbreaker in “Rebel Without A cause”, a defining moment in American film industry: -

“When the jester sang for the King and Queen
In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
And a voice that came from you and me”

I could go on and on about the various facets of the lyrics and what they could possibly mean. Among the more interesting events alluded in the lyrics are the rise of Rolling Stones; the political inclination of the Beatles; the murder of Tate by Charles Manson; the famous Woodstock concert; and the infamy of the Rolling Stones’ concert at Altamont where a young man was beaten and killed by a member of the Hell’s Angel who was engaged as security crew. These are but some of the events related in the song. Events which formed a lasting impression on America and the world in general.

Whatever it is, I never failed to be saddened by the last few verses of the song, which to me, is still relevant to the whole world and indeed to Malaysia and our society in the present days. As the electric instruments and percussions stop and McLean is left strumming his acoustic guitar, the tempo slows down and he sings, in a melancholic voice:

“I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before
But the man there said the music woudn't play
And in the streets the children screamed

The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire most
The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died”

The girl who sang the blues was of course Janis Joplin, a singer full of verve and emotions, with a voice which would make even the hardest of hearts weep, a singer who was saved from the streets a hippie and turned into a blues star but later was found dead with foams in her mouth courtesy of a handful or bottleful of LSDs.

When asked for some happy news, she would just smile and turn away and the man at the music store said the music just wouldn’t play. The children screamed, the lovers cried and the poets dreamed. And the father, son and the holy ghost, they took the last train for the coast.

These lyrics never fail to make me sad as I ponder and fear for my children’s life in future Malaysia. The music has long died in Malaysia. And if I had asked the girl who sang the blues, I am sure she would just smile and turn away. It is sad, but true. Just read our newspapers nowadays. Just listen to our politicians. The mullahs. Just look at Malaysia today. American Pie is worth more than we ever realize.

May God have mercy on us.

Ladies & Gentlemen, we have safely landed…

2011-10-19T14:16:00.001+08:00

Ding dong…a very good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, we have safely landed at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Welcome to Malaysia.

The local time is 5.35pm. The weather is slightly cloudy with the usual monsoon rain expected in about 30 minutes time and the current temperature is 34 degrees Celcius. For those who think that the rain in Malaysia is similar to the rain in Paris, London or New York, please note that our monsoon drains are 8 feet deep and 4 feet wide and run for hundreds of kilometres. They cost 30,000 Malaysian Ringgit per foot to build and 30 million Malaysian Ringgit to maintain per month. We take our rain very seriously, Ladies & Gentlemen. And you would be well advised that the rain in your country is nothing, repeat, nothing compared to the rain in our country.

A bit about Malaysia for you. Malaysia is truly Asia. We have the Talibans in some states and government agencies. Please do not ever ever bring with you a Bible in Bahasa Melayu, the national language. Sorry, I have to be more specific. No Bible in Bahasa Melayu is allowed in Peninsula Malaysia. Eh, sorry, I have to be more particularly specific. No Bible is allowed in Bahasa Melayu in the Peninsula Malaysia other than the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, our capital and Putrajaya, our administrative capital. In the states of Sabah and Sarawak, Bible in Bahasa Melayu is kosher.

By the way, Bahasa Melayu is also known as Bahasa Malaysia or Bahasa Kebangsaan. As to why it has three names, let’s not get into that or otherwise you all would never disembark this plane.

By the same token, please do not use the word Allah if you are not Muslims unless you are in Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya or the states of Sabah or Sarawak. So Ladies and Gentlemen, beware of the state boundaries while in Malaysia. For example, if you are in Kuala Lumpur going towards PJ Hilton, do stop at the Kuala Lumpur/PJ boundary to throw away your Bible in Bahasa Melayu, if any. And stop using the word Allah too. As a rule of thumb, you would know when to do that when you exit a toll plaza, if you use a highway, that is.

So, as I was saying, we have the Talibans. Then we have the Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and various races from the Indian sub-continents. Venture along the Bukit Bintang areas at night and you will see many Chinese from China, Vietnamese, Myanmarese and Cambodians, all of them women. Somewhere in Ampang, you will see many Koreans. Venture into some of our private colleges which teach English – without students although there are many student names on the register – and you will probably see some Iranians. And that’s apart from the thousands of Indonesians, Thais and Philippines here.

We are truly Asian, indeed.

Speaking of Talibans, if you happen to be an American couple of 60 years of age or more, please be careful while you are in your hotel room. Your room may be raided at 3am and both of you dragged in a hearse or kereta mayat to a religious agency’s office for “khalwat.” After finding out that you are not Muslims, you would be duly released.

So, don’t worry too much about it. It is part of our effort to give you a full “Malaysian experience”, an experience which you will not forget and will ever remember.

Thank you for flying with us, MAS, Malaysia Air-Asia System, ooops, sorry, the Malaysia Airline System. Here at MAS, we give a lifetime warranty that Malaysia will not turn into an asylum. This lifetime warranty is good for 10 days or until you go completely insane, whichever comes first.

While in Malaysia, please do not hesitate to drive around. Rent a car, like our national car, the Proton. Mind you, Proton gives a lifetime warranty that it’s power windows will work. The lifetime warranty is good for 10 years or until 250000 km, whichever comes first. A double lifetime warranty that all four tyres will continue rotating is also in the pipeline, we heard.

Do switch on the television set and watch our national channels please. The contents are guaranteed to be inoffensive by the Minister of Information himself. So you can watch all the programmes without being worried that any of them might offend you, your wife or girlfriends, your kids, your mother or anybody. All offensive programmes, including advertisements or public announcement services have been removed. Do not worry.

However, there might at times be shown on our national channels some black & white video clips of half naked men in a towel in a hotel room waiting to have sexual intercourse with a nice little sex worker during prime time. That is not offensive. So please do not be offended by that.

While you are having your nice Italian, French or plain old English dinner, there might be some discussions on our national television channels about how semen could be found in the ass without any penetration of the ass and the likes. That is also not offensive. Sorry if you find that offensive. You are obviously hyper-sensitive social miscreants from the West who are too concern with political correctness. Get real please.

For those of you who are Christians, please be careful while talking to the Muslims over here. They are very weak and they could be proselytised to Christianity very easily. If that happens, you are at fault. You could be dragged in a hearse or kereta mayat to any religious office and be interrogated. They might raid your hotel and do whatever.

As a guide, please conceal your crucifixes while talking to your Muslim friends. If you wear crucifix on your necklace or bracelets, do conceal it. If you have a crucifix tattoo on any part of your body which could be seen by your Muslim friends, please remove those tattoos before meeting your Muslim friends. They might get offended or worse still, they might convert to Christianity after meeting you. Trouble, I tell you!

Now, I wish to make a special announcement to all of you who are British. We are sorry and please accept our most fervent apology for saying all this while that you lot had colonised us. We now say you have never colonised us. Repeat. You, the British, have never colonised us.

All those times, you were only protecting us from the evil Dutch, Portuguese and Thais. In fact, looking at our nation 54 years after you all had left, we now think that you were actually protecting us from ourselves. Our deepest gratitude to you all. Never mind the fact that all our Sultans or Malay Rulers had to follow and do whatever you said. You have been very kind to station your advisers in all our states to advise our Rulers and forced them to follow such advices. Thank you also for permanently rearranging our society.

For all that you have done in protecting us, we have repaid you with our tins and all our other natural resources. We are just so thankful that you did not manage to find oil in our country during your time here. Otherwise, you would have also taken them all.

We have also allowed you to convert our land into rubber estates and named our roads in your British names. In fact, we are sorry to have stolen your British names and used them for our roads, schools, temples, churches and others. You have been very kind.

You might ask why our Father of Independence screamed out Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka (Free, Free, Free) at the stroke of midnight of 31st August 1957 had we not been colonised by you? Well, it seems that he was only celebrating the divorce of his good friend from his three wives.

The point is, you have not colonised us. Sorry for saying so for the past 80 years or so.

For those of you who are inclined to know our contemporary political and societal issues, please be advised that you will not impress Malaysians in any of your conversation with us if you talk about our newly read budget for 2012, the fast rising inflationary rate, the impact of the global economy, particularly the impact of the forthcoming Europe meltdown, or the United States’ debt ceiling or similar matters.

The most recent issue in our political arena, which is being discussed everywhere for the past 3 days is the squeezing of tits. In local lingo (use the local lingo if you want to impress us ya!) that is called “ramas tetek.” You can start your conversation with anyone of us by asking, “eh, true ahh that fler ramas the tetek?” And just follow the flow of the conversation after that.

If you want to impress your Malaysian friend more after that, throw in some discussions about sodomy. Then try discussing about the possibilities of semen ending up in the ass without penetration. Come up with your own theory, like the semen could fly into the ass. Something like that. Then talk about sex videos. You will surely be a hit with the locals in no time.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure serving you and we hope to see you again on our flight. A very good evening from me, your friendly stewardess, Norazilawati Azreen Sherry binti Mahat.

(silent)

….

Ding dong. This is your chief crew, Tony Fernando. On behalf of Captain Ahmad, welcome on board flight MH481 to London. We apologise for Cik Norazilawati’s mistake in reading the arrival greeting instead of a departure greeting just now.

Our flight to London will take 13 hours……….

Hudud – Federal vs State Legislative Powers

2011-10-04T14:46:00.001+08:00

I have stated in my article, Of wet dream, nightmare and Marty McFly that the implementation of hudud is a Constitutional impossibility until and unless two-third of our Members of Parliament would vote to amend the Federal Constitution to allow it to happen. I also grimly stated in that article that the time when such Constitutional amendment is moved would be the first time when our Members of Parliament would vote solely or predominantly along racial and religious line regardless of party policy or party whip.

The Bar Council has since issued a statement which basically echoes my opinion. Lim Chee Wee, the Bar Council’s President was quoted as saying:

“Hudud cannot be implemented within the current constitutional and legislative framework.”

My friend, the learned Professor Aziz Bari was reported to have disagreed with the Bar Council’s view. The learned Professor was quoted to say:

“The key here is Islam, not criminal law.”

The learned Professor pointed out that the Federal Constitution has set out the respective jurisdiction and powers of the Federal and State legislature. As the powers to legislate on matters pertaining to Islam rests with the State, he argued that the State, including Kelantan, may pass hudud laws accordingly. He also refuted that such move would result in double jeopardy for Muslim wrongdoers as, in his words:

“In other words, two systems is not a problem and we are not the only country in the world where this duality prevails.”

I have the highest of respect and regard for the learned Professor but I beg to differ on his opinion on this matter.

While I acknowledge and admit that the respective State Legislative Assembly (“SLA”) has the power to legislate on matters pertaining to Islam, I am somewhat doubtful that the SLA may pass any kind of law which creates offences and prescribes punishment for those offences in accordance with the tenet of Islam, especially when such offences and punishments are already created and prescribed by the Parliament.

The Federal Constitution divides the legislative powers between the Parliament and SLA quite clearly. The Parliament, or loosely, the Federal government, has the power to legislate over matters specified in List 1 (or otherwise known as the “Federal List”) of the 9^th Schedule of the Federal Constitution. The SLA on the other hand may legislate on those matters in List II (also known as the “State List”) of the 9^th Schedule. In addition, there are matters which may be legislated by both the Parliament and the SLA. These are contained in List III of the 9^th Schedule (also known as the “Concurrent List”).

Included in the Federal List is, among other things, “civil and criminal” law; the constitution of all courts other than the Syariah Courts and the jurisdiction and powers of all such courts.

That much is clear. All this while, it is the Parliament which creates and defines all criminal offences as well as prescribing all punishment for those offences. There is no doubt about that. (In this respect, there are already laws governing murder, theft and slander, which are three of the hudud offences prescribed by the Quran. The only hudud offence which is not criminalised by the secular law is adultery).

In the meantime, the SLA may pass laws relating to several Islamic matters. Let’s reproduce the whole paragraph 1 of the State List, so as not to cause any confusion*:

Except with respect to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan,

i. Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy guardianship, gifts, partitions and non- charitable trusts; Wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious endowments, institutions, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State; Malay customs. Zakat, Fitrah and Baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue, mosques or any Islamic public places of worship,

ii. creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List;

iii. the constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over person professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law,

iv. the control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam;

v. the determination of matters of Islamic law and doctrine Malay custom. (emphasis is mine).

*The above provision is actually contained in one paragraph. I have broken it into several parts denoting the different areas of Islamic matters which the SLA may legislate to maintain clarity.

The learned Professor opined that “power on Islamic law belongs to the State.” He then referred to the decision of our Supreme Court (then, the highest Court in Malaysia) Mamat bin Daud vs Govt of Malaysia where the Court held that a provision in the Penal Code which impacted on Islamic law was invalid as the Parliament had no power to legislate over Islamic matters. The learned Professor therefore challenged the Bar Council’s view that the Kelantan State does not have the power to enact the hudud law.

It is quite clear from the State List reproduced above that various Islamic matters are within the purview of the SLA. The decision in Mamat bin Daud reinforces the view that strict adherence to the respective lists by the Parliament and the SLA in enacting laws is called for. In that case, a provision was included in the Penal Code by the Parliament which makes it an offence for anybody to cause religious disunity. The purport of that section was to maintain public order, a matter which is quite obviously within the purview of the Parliament. However, in a 3-2 majority decision (with the late Eusoffee Abdoolcader, among others, dissenting), the Supreme Court held that that provision impinges on Islamic matters, which is in the State List and consequently the Parliament had no power to legislate on it.

It follows from that decision that the Court jealously guarded the purview, width and breadth of the respective Federal and State lists. No amount of encroachment will be allowed by either the Parliament or the SLA on each other’s powers. Although the offence created by the Parliament in that case falls under public order, which comes under the purview of the Parliament, the Court still viewed that as an encroachment of the SLA’s power to legislate on Islamic matters.

It is therefore clear and obvious that the Court took a strict and stringent approach in determining the rights and powers to legislate of the Parliament and the SLA.

Applying that strict rule, it is my humble opinion that the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly does NOT have the power to legislate on hudud laws or the power to create criminal offences and prescribe “Islamic” punishments for those offences. Matters concerning civil and criminal laws are clearly within the power and purview of the Parliament by virtue of the Federal List.

To allow the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly to enact a law to create hudud offences and prescribe punishment for those offences would amount to the usurpation by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly of the Parliament’s power to legislate over criminal matters. Applying the strict approach in Mamat bin Daud case, any law passed by the Kelantanese State Legislative Assembly as such would be void for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

Is it true that hudud comes within the State List and therefore the SLA has the power to legislate on it? We have to analyse the above State List to answer this question.

Paragraph (i) above concerns family, personal, inheritance and trust matters. That much is clear. Hudud does not come within the ambit of paragraph (i) above.

The bone of contention is paragraph (ii) above. It states that the SLA has the power over the creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List.

There are three important points to be made about this provision.

Firstly, the said provision is far narrower than the power given to the Parliament. Paragraph 4 of the Federal List spells out in the widest term possible the power of the Parliament to legislate over “civil and criminal law.” That includes everything under the sun. The only exception is “Islamic personal law relating to marriage, divorce, guardianship, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, family law, gifts and succession, testate and intestate.” Any other matters would come within the power of the Parliament to legislate.

Contrast that provision to paragraph (ii) above. Paragraph (ii) does not say “Islamic civil and criminal laws.” Nor does it say “the creation and punishment of offences IN the precepts of that religion.” It also contains a very important exception, namely, “except in regard to matters included in the Federal List.”

That brings me to my second point. Paragraph (ii) above only gives the SLA power to create and punish offences AGAINST the precepts of Islam. It does not give power to the SLA to create and punish offences IN the precepts of Islam. The established hudud offences, namely, murder, adultery, slander and theft are not offences against the precepts of Islam. They are offences within or in accordance with the precepts of Islam.

The failure to observe and appreciate this aspect of the provision has often led to a misconception that the State has the power to create any kind of offences as long as those offences are regarded as offences IN Islam. That is entirely wrong.

No less than our Federal Court, in Sulaiman Bin Takrib v Kerajaan Negeri Trengganu & Anor has, with respect, fallen into such interpretational misdeed when it held that the SLA had power to create offences “against the precepts of Islam” although by doing so, a criminal offence would be create so long as no such offence has been created by the Parliament. Former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid in his judgment says:

“In the instant case, as the offences are offences against the precept of Islam, as there are no similar offences in the federal law and the impugned offences specifically cover Muslims only and pertaining to Islam only, clearly it cannot be argued that they are “criminal law” as envisage by the Constitution.”

It has been my absolute pleasure and honour to have appeared before the learned CJ on some occasions. FCJ Abdul Hamid was a learned Judge for whom I have the highest of respect. However, his Lordship’s test in the above case is, in my humble opinion, wholly unsatisfactory.

The test is not whether there has been an offence created by the Parliament on the issue at hand. Rather the test is whether the offence created by the State Legislative Assembly is “against the precepts of Islam.” In this respect, offences AGAINST the precepts of Islam are totally different in nature and manifestation from offences IN the precepts of Islam.

This brings me to my third point. Paragraph (ii) above clearly prohibits the SLA from legislating on matters which “are included in the Federal list.” How clearer can that be? Is there any ambiguity there?

The prohibition is as clear as daylight. As long as the matter sought to be legislated by the SLA is included in the Federal list, the SLA is prohibited from legislating on it. That prohibition is absolute. Applying Mamat bin Daud above, that prohibition must be strictly observed. It does not say the prohibition only applies if the matters are included in the Federal list and they have been legislated by the Parliament. CJ Abdul Hamid is wrong in Sulaiman Takrib case in this respect.

It is clear therefore that the State list does not vest the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly, or any other SLA for that matter, the power to pass hudud laws or to create criminal offences. The law passed by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly on hudud, in my humble opinion, is void for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

Lawak Jumaat

2011-09-30T11:43:00.001+08:00

“Perkasa is of the view that security cannot be compromised. Security must override human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.” (as reported in a Malaysiakini report on 29th September 2011).

I just have one little question.

How can anybody feel safe or secured if his or her human rights can be taken away by the State, anytime, anywhere and anyhow?

Aku tak paham. Probably because the statement is too “dalam”.

Of wet dream, nightmare and Marty McFly

2011-09-28T14:02:00.001+08:00

I have not seen the Buku Jingga, let alone read it. I wonder what Pakatan Rakyat says about hudud. Or whether Pakatan Rakyat says anything about it at all.

Whatever public posturing Pakatan Rakyat puts up in relation to hudud, everybody knows that in hudud resides an issue within Pakatan Rakyat which is potentially explosive and may ultimately be destructive. Everybody knows that. Pakatan Rakyat knows that. And Tun Dr Mahathir, unfortunately to Pakatan Rakyat, also knows that.

While the Barisan Nasional, particularly UMNO, was busy trying to out-manoeuvre Mat Sabu in history 101 and the Prime Minister eagerly venturing into a state of “coolness” and “sempoi-neity”, Tun Dr Mahathir had other ideas. His was a meister stroke of all political strokes in Malaysia. That’s because he knows what hurts the most as well as when and where to execute the hurting blow.

So, in an interview one day he threw a seemingly harmless challenge to PAS. PAS has always maintained that he (Tun DrM) was the reason why it could not implement hudud in Kelantan. Tun DrM then asked why hasn’t PAS written to Prime Minister Najib to implement hudud as he (Tun DrM) is now no more the PM.

Those of you who of my generation will remember the character Marty McFly from the Back to the Future trilogy – to digress, I wonder when Hollywood is going to remake this film – apart from the totally cool and sempoi DeLorean DMC-12 in the movie. Marty boy was a smart kid. Very nice and mild-mannered boy. Quite cool and level headed too. That was until the antagonist started calling him “chicken”. Upon being called “chicken”, Marty McFly would lose all his good manners and level-headedness. He would turn reckless and completely berserk. He would even do really stupid things.

Tun DrM knew all the while that hudud is to PAS and Tuan Guru Nik Aziz what “chicken” was to Marty McFly. Mention the word “hudud” and Tuan Guru Nik Aziz would instantly go ape and all bananas. The whole PAS would grimace in orgasmic pleasure like a 13 year old after his first wet dream. That would in turn be a nightmare for Pakatan Rakyat. In Pakatan Rakyat, DAP’s stand on hudud is clear. DAP is against hudud. As for PKR, well, it depends on what day the issue is raised and on which side of the bed Anwar Ibrahim wakes up that day.

TDM knows very well that hudud will cause Pakatan Rakyat to lose its “pakatan”. His challenge was a calculated move to throw Pakatan Rakyat into shambles. That was exactly what had happened after his challenge.

TGNA firstly dismissed as laughable suggestions by TDM that Kelantan can now implement hudud now that TDM has retired. He then challenged the present Prime Minister to withdraw Putrajaya’s objection to the implementation of hudud in Kelantan. If TGNA was politically savvy, he would have stopped there.

No, he did not.

TGNA then continued to meet with Prof Aziz Bari and Dr Dzulkefli Ahmad on 25^th September 2011 to discuss the implementation of hudud in Kelantan and gave assurance that hudud will only affect Muslims and will not be imposed on non-Muslims. (the full report is here).

DAP, quite expectedly, responded. Karpal went into amok mode. Lim Guan Eng, meanwhile, said that the party’s entire Central Executive Committee would resign from their position in the party if hudud was ever included in Pakatan Rakyat’s Common Policy Framework or Buku Jingga.

The Star newspaper of course saw this as an opportunity. On 25^th September it apparently reported what Guan Eng said above. However on 26^th September, the Star apparently modified the news to report that Guan Eng had threatened the resignation of the DAP’s leadership from Pakatan Rakyat.

The water gets even murkier when Anwar Ibrahim, quite recklessly (politically) said that he supports the Kelantan State Government’s move to implement hudud (see here for the report). He later clarified his statement saying that all decisions affecting the people will have to be based on consensus within Pakatan Rakyat. He was quoted as saying:

“We hold firm to the conviction that any issue which affects the interest of the people must be discussed frankly in a civilized manner with the objective of seeking an amicable resolution.”

That statement actually does not add or detract to what he had earlier said, namely, that he thinks hudud can be implemented in Kelantan. This was what he said earlier:

“For now, in general, in principle, I believe this can be implemented…It is a specific area that affects Muslims and does not impeach rights of non-Muslims. The proceeding makes sure that administration of justice is guaranteed. "

By then a full storm was brewing within Pakatan Rakyat. PAS was again, showing its true colours.

I have always maintained that PAS could never shirk its aspiration for an Islamic State, namely, a state which is based on and run in accordance with the Sharia’ah laws and regulations. That has always been PAS’ drum beat and no amount of political posturing or word-spinning could hide that fact.

In recent times, PAS has added the Negara Kebajikan (welfare state) to its wordy armoury. This is all well and good, if not for TGNA’s and PAS’ recent hudud posture. TGNA could and would have done really well against Tun DrM’s harmless statement had he stuck to the welfare state agenda. But as I had said earlier, hudud is to TGNA and PAS what chicken was to Marty McFly.

This episode clearly shows that Pakatan Rakyat is full of inconsistent interests and ideologies. And the people within PR are prone to making reactive and self-destructive political statements or moves. That Pakatan Rakyat, especially PAS and DAP, managed to throw themselves into the large political hole that Tun DrM had dug right in front of them is almost comical.

To cap it up, PR then imposed a gag order against making or issuing any statement on the hudud issue until a meeting of top leaders scheduled to take place soon. Has Pakatan Rakyat ditched its own freedom of speech agenda? Or does Pakatan Rakyat now believe that its leaders are not capable of engaging each other on an important issue in a civil and rational manner? Which is which? Will the real Pakatan stand up please?

Amidst all these political gimmickry overdrives, the Prime Minister, fresh from scoring major political points after his announcement on the eve of Malaysia Day recently, made another major impact on the non-Muslim citizenry as well as urban Muslims, when he quickly announced that the Barisan Nasional will not implement hudud.

It is a brave announcement. It takes a whole lot of guts to say so, especially in current UMNO/Malaysia political climate where race and religion issues are championed by everybody from the likes of Zulkifli Noordin to Ibrahim Ali’s PERKASA.

That statement leaves Pakatan Rakyat and especially Anwar Ibrahim looking lame.

It is a calculated and clever statement. Politically the Prime Minister gave nothing and gained everything by saying so. PAS, TGNA and Anwar could have said so too. The reason is simple. Malaysia is a multi-ethnic-faiths society. Its Parliament is not filled with Muslim MPs only. It is filled with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and various other mixture of faiths and races.

Any move by any party to amend the Constitution in order to implement the Sharia’ah or hudud will require a two-third majority to succeed. If such move is made, it is certain that for the first time in Malaysian Parliamentary history, Members of Parliament will vote in accordance with their respective belief and faith. Which means, it will also be the first time MPs will not be cowed to vote in accordance with their party’s whip or wish. That will also mean that for the first time ever, we will witness a clear separation in our Parliament of MPs voting along racial and religious line.

It will be THAT divisive.

To me, hudud is a Constitutional impossibility. It will remain impossible until two-third of the membership of our Parliament is filled not only by Muslim MPs, but by Muslim MPs who actually wish to implement hudud.

By doing that too, we will effectively be surrendering this country to the ulamaks and mullahs, upon whose hands syaria’ah compliant laws and regulations will be entrusted.

Just as we now entrust what is halal to eat, drink, wear and use to JAKIM.

The charge against Mat Sabu

2011-09-21T15:35:00.001+08:00

Mat Sabu is charged today for criminal defamation. I have not read the exact charge. However from various reports, apparently he is charged for criminally defaming the police, soldiers or their families.
I don’t want to say much about the charge as I don’t want to be hauled up for making comments while the case is going on and thereby breaching the sub-judice rule (actually I think sub-judice rule is not even applicable in Malaysia, but that’s another issue).

We now see it fit to even abolish the ISA and Emergency Ordinance for the sake of freedom and liberties. We now see it fit to repeal the Printing Presses and Publication Act to restore freedom of speech to the people. However we cannot even treat opposing views and different interpretation of historical events or facts with respect and civility.

On this score, I am against all the police reports against Mat Sabu as well as against Professor Zainal Kling for their respective statements and opinions. A mature society and democracy should be able to deal with differing opinions calmly and of course, intellectually.

There are various other people who should be charged for sedition. I don’t have to list them out here. But they are not so charged. I wonder what has happened to the investigation on the Christian conspiracy and why it has taken such a long time to complete.

I am not in support of what Mat Sabu has said. I have to make this clear. In fact I am not in love with PAS either. This post is simply about the law.

I know a thing or two about the law of defamation, having done about 10 defamation cases involving some prominent personalities and establishments in my career. This is all I have to say about defamation:

i) you cannot defame the dead under our law. The rationale is the dead cannot have a reputation to protect. Nor can the estate of the dead have reputation. (while this position is correct in civil defamation, a learned friend of mine has pointed out that under section 499 of the Penal Code, a deceased person may be indeed be defamed , if "the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives." The AG would therefore have to prove that Mat Sabu had intended his statement to be hurtful of the deceased person's family or near relatives.

ii) for somebody to be guilty of defaming a person, he/she must have uttered an untrue statement which essentially lower the reputation of that person or put that person in public odium. Now, if Mat Sabu said that Mat Indera was a freedom fighter in the Bukit Kepong event, the AG would have to show how that statement had lowered the reputation of the police/soldiers or their family or put them in public odium.

iii) there must be a specific party or person or group of persons being defamed. Meaning, the statement uttered must refer to, or must be capable to be understood as referring to a specific person or group of persons. For example, if I say Ahmad is a rapist, not all Ahmad can sue me if my statement is untrue. My statement must refer to a certain Ahmad or must be capable of being interpreted to refer to a certain and specific Ahmad. Otherwise all the Ahmads in the world would be allowed to sue me for defamation. So, in this respect, the AG must be able to prove that Mat Sabu’s statement had indeed referred to or was capable to be interpreted as referring to a specific person or group of persons.

I am sure the AG and his people have given great and in-depth thoughts and consideration to all legal factors before proffering the charge against Mat Sabu.

I wish the AG good luck in this case.

DrM & ISA

2011-09-20T12:17:00.001+08:00

I don’t know whether I am supposed to cry, laugh, jump for joy, do a poco-poco or just polish my shoes.

But, according to a Malaysian Insider report, Tun Dr Mahathir now agrees that the ISA should be repealed. He however denies that the ISA had been abused.

The good Tun also said that Malaysia’s decision to repeal the ISA puts us on a “higher moral ground” than the UK or US as these countries apparently now detain people without trial.

Good one Tun. Thank you for firstly admitting that with the ISA around, we, as a nation, were on a lower moral ground. I agree with that.

By the way, the UK and US do not detain journalist, opposition politicians, people with political ideologies or belief which happen to be different from yours, people who spread stupid rumours via text messages (we call “sms”), a Muslim who apparently converted to Christianity and who apparently was actively trying to convert other Muslims to Christianity, passport forgers, bloggers and the likes.

The US does not even detain its own citizen without trial. They only detain “aliens” under the Patriot Act. Even then, the remedy of habeas corpus is readily and absolutely available to them. The US’ attorney general is obligated under the Patriot Act to make a report on all the detainees for the scrutiny of the Senate every six months.

Here, it was you who amended the ISA to take away the power of the Courts in relation to habeas corpus. The Courts, after your amendment, could only look at fullstops and comas while entertaining habeas corpus applications.

You also amended the Federal Constitution to take away the Court’s inherent and judicial powers. Our courts are the only courts in the whole universe which DO NOT HAVE JUDICIAL POWERS UNLESS THE PARLIAMENT SAYS SO!

(And here we have people like Tun Zaki, the ex Chief Justice declaring that he has managed to restore our Courts to its former glory. Has he even read article 121 of the Federal Constitution?)

By the way I have only one question.

If the ISA is so bad, so much so that it makes Malaysia and all of us to be on a low moral ground, and so much so that Tun DrM agrees that it should be repealed, doesn’t that make all actions under or pursuant to the ISA abusive?

The triumph of civil society

2011-09-19T16:53:00.001+08:00

There is a moment I spent with the late Raja Aziz Addruse which will forever be etched in my memory.

It was one Sunday morning at Raju’s PJ some years ago. I was telling him how jaded I felt at the state of things here in Malaysia, particularly the state of our judiciary. I told him I was ready to leave legal practice because nothing seemed to have changed. All efforts put in by everyone whom I know did not seem to yield any positive result at all.

He looked at me intently. I will always remember what he said. Because what he said epitomised the man and his indomitable spirit.

“Don’t stop knocking on the door even if nobody open the door for you. You have to keep on knocking. Who knows, one day, even if nobody opens it for you, it will crumble down.”

That was what he said.

Civil society has worked and campaigned tirelessly for the abolishment of laws which allow detention without trial, most particularly the draconian Internal Security Act. NGOs such as SUARAM and HAKAM for example took it upon themselves to make it heard that the ISA must go lock stock and barrel.

Human rights advocates such as Malik Imtiaz, Harris Ibrahim, Edmund Bon and many others have almost dedicated all their free times towards campaigning against the ISA and various other archaic laws which transgress universal and fundamental liberties.

The ISA is not the only oppressive law which was the target of these activists. The Police Act, which requires any planned gathering of 3 or more persons to obtain a prior police permit was also another example of an oppressive law which makes a mockery of Malaysia as a modern democracy. The Restricted Residence Act and the Printing Presses and Publication Act are another group of laws which deny the basic liberty of the people.

To top it up, as I pointed out recently in this article, Malaysia is still under four states of emergency which have never been officially uplifted. It is the year 2011. That we are still technically in, not one, but four, state of emergencies – declared in 1964; 1966; 1969 and 1977 – make a mockery of our push for a developed state status by 2020.

The fact that we are under states of emergency is of course insignificant if we do not consider the legal effect of the emergency. Under the Federal Constitution, almost all our liberties could be held in “suspension” when our country is under a state of emergency. It follows that all emergency laws and all regulations emanating from them, such as the archaic and totally repressive Emergency Ordinance 1969, could be enforced with impunity.

The currency of the states or emergency is therefore a frightening weapon of the States against the liberty of all of us, the people.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of the ISA is the complete misunderstanding of the law, not only among the police officers, the people in the Home Ministry but also among some of our Judges, right in the High Courts as well as the highest Court of the land, the Federal Courts.

While arguing one of the ISA cases in the Federal Court about 2 years ago, I told the Federal Court that the ISA is a “preventive” law and not a “punitive” law. What that simply means is that the ISA – by its very nature and even by the very words used in it – is to be used to “prevent” a planned act or series of acts which may be detrimental to national security. Which means the act has not happened yet and the ISA is to be used to prevent that act from happening. That is why it is called a “preventive” law.

The ISA is not a law which is to be used to punish a person or a group of persons for having done or committed any act, even though the act threatens national security. It is not “punitive” in nature. This is in line with the fact that under our system of law, only the Courts can punish. The government cannot punish the people without going to the Courts first.

It is conceded that under Article 149 of the Federal Constitution, laws providing for detention without trial is permitted to be made by the Parliament. However, a close look at Article 149 would reveal that the law providing for detention without trial which is permitted by that Article must be a law designed to “stop or prevent” any action which threatens national security.

It is clear that for such law to be constitutional under the Federal Constitutional, it must be preventive in nature and not punitive. I therefore told the Federal Court that the ISA was supposed to be preventive and not punitive.

To my complete and utter disbelief, the most senior of the 3 Judges who presided over the case disagreed with me. He said the ISA is punitive in nature. I was also later warned by another Judge in the same sitting (who had since died) to be “careful with what I submitted.”

To be frank, I think it is the Courts and the Judges who ought to be careful with what they think and decide because really, it is the liberty of the people which they are deciding upon. In some circumstances, what they decide could affect the life of the people. To tell me to be careful with what I submit in an ISA case involving the liberty of our citizens is an act of judicial cowardice!

The abuses of the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance are well documented. Recently of course, we had the case of the Parti Sosialis Malaysia’s members who were detained for more than a month under the EO for allegedly trying to wage war against the King by reintroducing communism to Malaysia! They were of course released after a huge outcry. Today I learn that all charges against them are to be withdrawn.

As for the various abuses of the ISA, one could just type the letters “ISA” in the search box of this blog and read about the litany of the abuses of the ISA. The most famous of all of course would be the detention of 106 people by Dr Mahathir under the infamous Operasi Lalang in 1987.

The Prime Minister has now announced that the ISA; the EO; the PPAP Act and the Restricted Residence Act will be repealed. The provision requiring police permit will also be repealed. The states of emergencies will be uplifted, thereby making the various emergency laws non-enforceable and void.

Two new laws will be enacted in order to make provisions for combating terrorism and the likes under the aforesaid Article 149. The Prime Minister went on to assure that these laws will take into consideration the fundamental liberties as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The length of detention will considerably be reduced the the present one.

It is also stressed by the PM that nobody will be detained merely on his or her political ideology.

I will take that as a victory and triumph of civil society. It is definite proof that if each and everyone is willing to stand up, be heard and counted, we can actually move mountains. The late Raja Aziz implored me to keep on knocking on the door as one day, who knows, according to him, the door might just crumble.

Well, the door has now crumbled. Wherever he is, Raja Aziz must be smiling right now. I could almost imagine him, looking at me with a smile, taking off his glasses and gently telling me in his trademark soft voice, “I told you so.”

For the moment, I will leave the scepticism to the politicians and other people with vested interests. Because really, I have no further interests in these and I will take the announcement by the PM on its face value.

Some people – in fact I know many of them – have questioned the intention of the Prime Minister in the 16th September announcement. It is said that the PM made the announcement because the general election is around the corner and he needs the support from the middle ground.

Well, to me, what was announced was for the better of this nation and her people. That is all that matters. Of course the announcement bears all the hallmark of political moves. So what if they are?

Which political parties or politicians make statement or announce a plan without political motivation? Did Mat Sabu make that Mat Indera speech just because he loves Mat Indera and not because it was seen by him that the statement would give him political mileage? Does PAS support Mat Sabu just because it thinks Mat Indera was indeed a freedom fighter? Wasn’t it populist and premised on political mileage that PKR champions greater freedom and equal rights? Doesn’t DAP’s support for PAS, despite knowing the latter’s wet dream for an Islamic state, premised on political expediency rather than it’s sudden love for Islam?

I am not a politician. I am also not someone who has the ability to foretell the future. For those who think that the 2 new laws may even be more oppressive than the ISA and the EO, I say let’s wait and see. We are not in the business of reading minds. I think we owe it to ourselves to let the Prime Minister prove his resolve. If he doesn’t deliver, then we will know what to do next.

There are of course many other repressive laws which have to be repealed. The Sedition Act and the University and University Colleges Act for example, are laws which have no place in a democracy which professes itself to be modern, mature and dynamic. The continuous threat of the Sedition Act to newspaper publishers and journalist alike for example, would render the exemption from renewal of annual publication licence meaningless. This threat will be like the sword of Damocles hanging on the head of the publishers and journalists.

However, I am willing to wait and take things one by one.

For the time being, let’s bask in this victory of ours.

Is it really, Professor? #2

2011-09-15T08:55:00.001+08:00

Need I say more?

*thank you to Shirzad Lifeboat who shares this on fb.

The human spirit

2011-09-14T11:23:00.000+08:00

This is the story of the human spirit.

Sad, ugly, vicious and violent. And yet it is so beautiful and inspiring. Somewhere out there, God must be smiling.

Is it really, Professor?

2011-09-12T12:32:00.001+08:00

I must admit of being astounded by the claim by Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling that Tanah Melayu had never been colonised by the British, save for the period when Malayan Union was introduced. For the record, this is his claim:

The good Professor rested his claim as such on the fact that the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 between Raja Abdullah and the British Governor in Singapore did not mention that Perak was to be colonised but was only to be “protected” as a “protectorate” of the British. The Professor went on to say that the only states which were colonised by the British in Tanah Melayu were Singapore, Penang and Melaka.

The good Professor may be correct in so far as historical terminologies go. But history is not about terminologies and semantics. True history is about facts and reality. Of course, facts may be looked at from different views, angles and perspective resulting in different interpretations and conclusions. Realities may also be subjected to the same treatment giving rise to the term of “administered reality”.

With all due respect to the good Professor, the British entry into Tanah Melayu and their subsequent entrenchment in Tanah Melayu’s administration leading to at least a de facto colonisation of the whole of the Tanah Melayu peninsula and her surrounding islets cannot be viewed solely from and within the effect of the Pangkor Treaty alone. That would tantamount to an attempt to define the whole cosmos just by looking at the moon alone and nothing else.

Let’s however begin with the Pangkor Treaty 1874 (as the Professor had relied his thesis on it).

For the record, prior to the Pangkor Treaty, the British, through the British East India Company, were already deeply entrenched in Tanah Melayu. It “colonised” Penang in 1786. Penang was later confirmed to be a possession of the British in 1800 by the then Sultan of Kedah. In 1819, Stamford Raffles took it upon himself to bring Singapore into the British fold.

Later in 1824, the British and the Dutch, presumably under the mandate of some godlike creatures residing somewhere within the mountains of Scotland, decided among themselves to divide the Malay Archipelago into two, thereby giving away Melaka to the British and Indonesia (Sumatera) to the Dutch.

In each of these three little states which the British saw fit to do as it please, they had a Governor who governed for the British. In 1867, these so called “settlements” became the “Crown Colonies” and came directly under the purview of the Colonial Office in London.

Meanwhile, in Perak, upon the death of Sultan Ali in 1871, a palace power struggle was brewing. The Raja Muda of Perak was Raja Abdullah. He should have gone on to take the thrones. As events would have it, the Raja Bendahara, Raja Ismail was pronounced as Sultan.

Perak was a rich tin producer at that time. The British were itchy to get their greedy hands on Perak. They were waiting for an opportunity. That opportunity presented itself when Raja Abdullah wrote to the Governor of Singapore, Sir Andrew Clarke, spelling out his desire to place Perak under British protection, and "to have a man of sufficient abilities to show (him) a good system of government."

The British surely did not need further motivation but to lend their generous helping hands to a Malay ruler in need of course. With that, the Governor very kindly entered into the Pangkor Treaty with Raja Abdullah on 20th January 1874. With that agreement in hand, Raja Abdullah was made Sultan of Perak (although Raja Ismail was earlier appointed Sultan by the Malay palace).

Raja Ismail (the then Sultan) of course did not attend the signing of the Pangkor Treaty as he did not recognise the agreement for obvious reason. But faced with the might of the very big and terribly friendly and generous British, Raja Ismail could not do anything other than seeing the throne being taken by Raja Abdullah. Sir W W Birch was appointed, pursuant to the agreement, Perak’s 1st British Resident.

(It was with considerable irony that Raja Abdullah – later Sultan Abdullah – was later thrown out to the Seychelles for conspiring to murder Birch).

Professor Datuk Dr Zainal was correct to say that the Pangkor Treaty did not say Perak was a colony of the British. But surely that does not mean that Perak was not colonised by the British.

So what if the British had said Perak was only a “protectorate”? Does it mean anything at all? What if the British had said that Perak was a “paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die”? Does that mean Perak was a “paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die”? Just because the British had said so?

The British, for whatever reason, chiefly because they had wanted to classify their dominions throughout the world for economics and social purposes (and also for qualification for British citizenship) had categorised its “conquests” into three classes, the colonies, the protectorates and the protected states. Semantically of course there are differences between the three. But factually, it does not take a rocket scientist, or a learned bunch of thick-spectacled history professors to know that there were not much of a difference between them.

A colony is of course a state which the British had “annexed” or “settled” in. This state was presumed to be a jungle or a barren state where civilisation did not exist. And the very civilised British had of course “discovered” that state, just like Stamford Raffles did Singapore or Francis Light did Penang.

A “protectorate” is a state which the civilised and friendly (and generous) British had not annexed or settled in. This is a state where the British came in at the request of the helpless ruler of that state. It is a state where the British came to help or came to administer not through force but through agreements or treatise. Yes. That is a protectorate.

A “protected” state on the other hand, is a state which is protected by the British, again at the request of the ruler of that state. However, according to the British, in a protected state, the British did not involve themselves with its governance.

Yes. That is the difference between the three classes of the British conquests. Who said so? Well, the British said so. So, if the British said so, it must be correct right? Well, the British also said that Maggie Thatcher had balls. Remember?

Relying on semantics – and these semantics were coined and used by none other than the British themselves – the good Professor said according to the Pangkor Treaty, Perak was not colonised.

Well, is it really? Let’s look at the terms of the so called treaty.

First of all, Raja Abdullah was proclaimed by the British as the Sultan of Perak in place of Raja Ismail, who was already proclaimed in accordance with the “adat dan istiadat Raja-raja Melayu Perak” as the Sultan. Now, may I ask, on what authority did the British make that appointment? On the fact that they are white men with guns and ammunitions far better than the collective keris and parangs owned by the Perakians? Now, if that is not annexation of Perak, tell me what it is.

Then, why don’t we (and the good Professor) loom at the salient terms of the so-called treaty.

Raja Abdullah was acknowledged as the legitimate Sultan to replace Sultan Ismail who would be given a title and a pension of 1000 Mexican pesos a month.
The Sultan would receive a British Resident whose advice had to be sought and adhered to in all matters except those pertaining to the religion and customs of the Malays.
All collections and control of taxes as well as the administration of the state would be done in the name of the Sultan, but the Sultan was to govern according to the advice and consent of the Resident.
The Minister of Larut would continue to be in control but would no longer be recognized as a liberated leader. Instead, a British officer, who would have vast authority in administering the district, would be appointed in Larut.
The Sultan, and not the British government, would pay the salary of the Resident.
Perak ceded Dinding and Pangkor Island to the United Kingdom.

Is this what a protectorate is all about? Does it not sound to all of us that Perak was as good as being annexed in a war with the British? Just consider the fact that the Sultan was to govern the state in accordance with the advice and consent of the British Resident. Perak was not colonised you say, Professor? Well, last night I saw pink cows flying over the crescent. Very nice.

Throughout the British presence in Tanah Melayu, we had three categories of states. The straits settlements, namely, Penang, Singapore and Melaka. Then we have Federated Malay States, ie, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. These states were all not “colonised”, according too the British. They were just protectorate. Yea, right.

Then we have the Unfederated Malay States, which were Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu and Johor. They were also termed as protected states by the British. Again, that does not mean that they were not colonised by the British.

Under intense pressure by the British for example, Johor accepted a treaty of protection by the United Kingdom in 1885. With that Johor accepted a British “advisor.”

The way Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu came under the “protection” and became branded as Unfederated Malay States is an insult to every Malaysians. And for the British to insist that they had never – officially and technically, that is – been colonised by the British is an act of colonial arrogance.

How did Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu become protected states of the British? Well, just as in 1824 when the British gods decided to divide this part of the world with the Dutch, in 1909, the British did the same with Thailand in the Anglo-Siamese Treaty 1909. In this treaty, these two gods divided the northern Malay states into two.

Under this treaty, Pattani , Narathiwat, Songkhla, Satun and Yala remained under Thai control, while Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu which integrated into the British realm in Tanah Melayu as protectorates.

Now, who gave the authority and mandate to the British and Thais to willy nilly decide among themselves who to own what? The Pope? The British queen?

The mere act of unilaterally dividing these collection of Malay states which even predate Melaka among themselves is incontrovertible proof that these states were under the whims and fancies of these two people, ie, the Thais and the British.

All the terms coined and marketed about by the British were only what they are, namely, terms. Semantics. That is all. The effect is the same. They came into our country either through uninvited settlements or request by some people with vested interests. Under the pretext of lending their hands to assists us, they raped, plundered and stole our resources. They invited and brought people from foreign lands (I have to stress that I do not have anything against them) to work here. They then divided all of us and ruled us. Now, if that is not colonisation, I do not know what is.

The mere fact that they could come back to Malaya after the Japanese – who kicked them out earlier in about 5 days – surrendered and forced the Malay Rulers and everybody else to accept the Malayan Union (where they consolidated the Straits Settlements; the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States into one Federation – is proof enough that they regarded Tanah Melayu – regardless of their semantic classifications – as their possession, as theirs to do whatever they liked.

Isn’t that a trait of every colonial Master, Datuk Dr Professor?

If they had not controlled the whole Tanah Melayu other than the Straits Setllements, how did they manage to force every state to accept the Malayan Union. How did they manage to compel all our Malay Rulers to submit to their arrogance habit of dividing this territory as if we are some bunch of grapes which were to be graded and stomped on by their feet whenever they please?

What authority did the British have to “administer” us? To submit too their system? To their sense of justice? To their system of civil service? I am not saying that their systems are bad but under what authority did they manage to make us adopt their systems other than a systematic colonisation of our land?

Dear Professor, perhaps you should read the British Parliament hansard when they were debating the Malayan Independence Bill. In the first place, if they did not colonise us, why and under what authority did they have to pass an Act of Palriament in their Parliament to give us “independence”?

Sometime, people show their true colours when the speak. This is what the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, in a Freudian moment, said:

“Today, we are setting the seal on this work. We can, with Edmund Burke, rejoice that our ancestors have made the most extensive and the only honourable conquest not by destroying but by promoting the wealth, the number and the happiness of the human race.” (emphasis is mine).

Yes. That was, and still is, how they saw us.

Their honourable conquest.

And we were not colonised you say?

Well, Screw Yew!

2011-09-06T15:03:00.001+08:00

“It shows that Malaysians are observing the agreements they have signed without trying to retaliate in other directions, such as water, which will lead to war.”

That was part of what Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew reportedly said to a bunch of students at Nanyang Technological University last night.

The “agreements” which he was referring to was the one which was allegedly signed in 1990 in respect of the status of the KTM’s railway station in Tanjung Pagar and land between Bukit Timah and Tanjung Pagar. I have heard so many versions of that so-called point of agreements and the personality involved behind it. Suffice if I say that that so-called agreement is not beyond scrutiny when it comes to its enforceability.

After having said the above, The Minister Mentor continued to speak “positively” of “increasing connectivity” between Malaysia and Singapore through the construction of a third bridge. (I bet you Dr Mahathir is now hyperventilating with immense pleasure after reading that statement).

The above remark is typical of the bomb-in-floral-wrap diplomacy which Singapore is so well known for. That tiny southern cock is well known for cuckoo-ing nice little compliments and praises to its neighbours while at the same time lacing them with seemingly harmless little hypothesis of wars and mayhems.

To me, the above remark is but a reflection of Singapore’s insecurity as a smallish state without any real and tangible strength in its resources, particularly in terms of citizenry and natural sustenance capabilities.

Singapore is almost always haunted by the fact that she even have to import water from Malaysia. She is of course also mindful, at all times, of the fact that 300000 of its workforce, come from Malaysia. Her economy by and large is also dependant on Malaysia’s willingness to maintain a peaceful, cordial and neighbourly relationship with herself.

There is absolutely no reason for Lee Kuan Yew to spell out his nightmare to 1700 students in a forum, unless that nightmare has been haunting him and the rest of the Cabinet of Singapore for all of their collective life.

I would ask him, what “retaliation”? Is taking a stance – no matter how tough that stance is – in future negotiations with Singapore on any possible extension of any water agreement with Singapore an act of “retaliation”? If so, will (notice he used the word “will” and not “would”) that “retaliation” lead to war, dear Lee Kuan Yew?

If that statement was not a veiled threat to coerce and bully Malaysia into quiet submission to any whim and fancy of Singapore’s choice – particularly in any future negotiations in respect of the water agreement – I don’t know what it is.

Lee Kuan Yew and his subservient minions in Singapore’s cabinet should be more circumspect in their choice od words if they wish to maintain a warm diplomatic relationship with its neighbours, particularly Malaysia. They would be well advised to note that civilised countries do not resort to issuing a not-too-veiled threat of war at the drop of a hat.

The Philippines had always had a bone to pick with Malaysia over the latter’s more than sympathetic stance in favour of the Moro Liberation Army’s fight for autonomy. Did it utter the word “war”? No.

Thailand’s position over Malaysia’s alleged assistance to the Islamic rebels in its southern region is also common knowledge. Did Thailand issue a “war” warning to Malaysia? No.

Brunei has had numerous overlapping territorial claims with Malaysia in the oil rich seas. Did Brunei cry “war”? No.

Indonesia has had an almost schizophrenic relationship with Malaysia leading to demonstrations on its street complete with flag burning and all. Did it even whisper the word “war”? No.

So please, Lee Kuan Yew and friends, stop being belligerent cocks and save that “W” word for your next play-station indulgence, okay.

As a nation, Malaysia suffers 2058 air violations since the year 2008 at the hand of Singapore’s blind-as-a-bat air force pilots. In international laws and conventions, repeated and intentional encroachments into a nation’s space are acts of war. As a good neighbour, we just close our eyes and make a bit of noises once in 3 years or so. The word “war” has never left our lips.

What do you say about that Lee Kuan Yew? You don’t see any lesson from that? Or are you too old: too intellectually challenged; too mentally impotent to see?

If I were the Foreign Minister of Malaysia, a terse and not very nicely worded missive in respond to the above statement would find its way to Singapore by now.

Post script:

By the way, dear Lee Kuan Yew, do you want to know what a pub singer thinks of Singaporeans? Well here it is.

Quote: Singaporean men are “arrogant, short and ugly” but she would marry one of them for their money.

Now now Mr Lee, don’t you go declaring war against China please. That was just an opinion of a pub singer.

Sambutan Aidilfitri dan Kemerdekaan

2011-08-26T09:15:00.001+08:00

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri Maaf Dzahir dan Batin dari saya sekeluarga kepada semua umat Islam. Saya juaga ingin mengucapkan selamat menyambut hari kemerdekaan kepada semua warga Malaysia.

Moga kita saling memaafkan di hari baik dan bulan yang baik ini.

Sempena hari kemerdekaan, mari kita semua ingati jasa dan titik-peluh pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan kita dan kita renungi apakah maksud sebenarnya kemerdekaan itu serta juga apakah sumbangan kita untuk memenuhi kemerdekaan yang negara kita capai.

Kepada mereka yang akan memandu pada musim perayaan ini, pandulah dengan bwerhemah tinggi, cermat dan berhati-hati pada setiap masa. Bawa bersabar di dalam perjalanan; pastikan konsentrasi; utamakan keselamatan dan elakkan kemalangan.

Kepada pasukan polis yang bertungkus-lumus, berpanas berhujan dan tidak bercuti untuk mempastikan keselamatan jalan-raya dan umum serta mengawal lalulintas, saya ucapkan jutaan terima kasih.

Salam sejahtera.

A short rebuke of Ezam Mohd Nor

2011-08-16T11:53:00.001+08:00

Dear Ezam,

With reference to your manic and almost maniacal spewing of hatred last Friday, I just have this to say to you.

You are an embarrassment.

This is Ramadhan. Muslims fast during Ramadhan. Good Muslims do not only fast and suffer mere physical pain during the fasting – a 6 year old can do that – but they reflect upon themselves and upon their surroundings and they abstain not only from food and drinks, but also from all things evil and ungodly.

The hunger pang and thirst which Muslims suffer during the fast are just the surface of something which is deeper and more meaningful. Good Muslims correlate the mere physical abstention to a more meaningful spiritual experience. Without the spiritual experience and realisation of fasting, the act of fasting becomes and is reduced to a mere ritual and yearly routine.

Perhaps it was not a surprise that you did what you did last Friday. That is because, well, you are just being yourself.

Jihad in Islam has been totally misunderstood, by the non-Muslims and Muslims alike. And who is to blame for such misunderstanding when there are people like you going around running amok after Friday prayer and rabidly calling for jihad and threatening to burn down news portals?

May I ask you Ezam Mohd Nor, exactly against whom were you going to jihad? All Christians in Malaysia? The Damansara Utama Methodist Church? Oh yes, against those Christians who are conspiring to proselytise all Muslims in Malaysia and elsewhere. Yes, I forgot. But exactly who are they? And where are they?

Jihad does not mean declaring a war. The word “jahada”, which is the base word for jihad simply means “to strive” or “to struggle”. Throughout time, this word has been twisted, manipulated and misinterpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The result is that Islam has been painted with this black images of suicide bombers seeking martyrdom and of cartoons like yourself running amok after Fridar prayer and in the compound of a mosque no less.

The Quran ordains:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." (2:190)

Yes. It asks us to fight and strive. But only in the cause of Allah and against those who fight us. We are not asked to look for fights. Even if circumstances require and demand us to fight, the Quran implores us not to transgress limits.

May I therefore ask you Ezam, were there any party fighting us last Friday? If so, who? And did you not stop to think that you were not transgressing the limits last Friday considering the nature of our society?

What is the best jihad of all jihads? You think it’s burning down other people’s office is the best? Well please go and study the Quran and the traditions.

You gave a fiery speech. You called for a jihad. You threatened to burn down news portals (assuming it is possible to do so). Well, you could have used your speech in a better way, namely, to call people to the ways of Allah. That is true jihad. Allah commands:

"Who is better in speech than one who calls (other people) to Allah, works righteous, and declares that he is from the Muslims." (41:33)

Do you know what are the best of jihads to Prophet Muhammad? On one occasion, a man asked the Prophet Muhammad^:

“Should I join the jihad?' He asked, 'Do you have parents?' The man said, 'Yes!' The Prophet said, 'Then strive by serving them!” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 5972)

Yet another man asked the Messenger of Allah^:

What kind of jihad is better?' He replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!'" (Sunan Al-Nasa'i , No. 4209).

So please Ezam, take your jihad away. Islam does not need your kind of juvenile jihad.

JAIS missing the point

2011-08-12T11:26:00.001+08:00

JAIS issued a statement yesterday concerning the so-called “raid” on Damansara Utama Methodist Church’s Dream Centre in Petaling Jaya on 3rd August 2011.

In its statement, JAIS clarified that it was not a raid as reported. Nor was there any force used during the walk about by JAIS in the Church’s premises. In its own word, it was just an “inspection”. Kinda like what PUSPAKON (sic) is doing on all vehicles which are sold second hand.

It could then be gathered from JAIS’ statement that it was a friendly thingy. You know, the kind of visit by strangers to our house unannounced just after we have dinner with some guests where our guests were questioned why they were in our house; what did we, as hosts, say before, during and after dinner; did we, as hosts, try to proselytise (did I get the spelling correct? Sorry, I have to confirm this because before the raid, I never knew this word existed, let alone know its meaning) them yada yada yada.

JAIS director, Encik Marzuki Hussin said, among others:

Jais officers did not interrupt the event and only inspected the venue after the dinner had ended.
Accusations that Jais raided, used force and trespassed are wild accusations.
The 12 Muslims who had attended the event were only asked to provide their details and directed to attend counselling sessions.

I find this really amazing, really.

Our Honourable Prime Minister flew all the way to the Vatican to meet the Pope; shook his hand; gave the Pope a book and established a diplomatic relationship with the Vatican. Then he came back to Kuala Lumpur cutting short his family holiday because he would rather be with us, the people.

And what did some little Caliphs, defenders of the faith do? Yes. Together with the police, they “inspected” a private dinner hosted, not by the church, but by an AIDS organisation to say thank you for all the hard works and efforts put into the organisations by some people.

The point is not whether it was a raid or inspection, JAIS. Nor was it whether you entered before, during or after the dinner. Nor also whether there was any interruption. Nor whether you all were as nice as cupcakes. That is NOT the point.

The point is you had the nerve to gate-crash a private dinner on the pretext of investigating a report the details of which you were unable to give when requested. And please tell me under what authority and for what reason are the 12 Muslim guests were asked to attend counselling session with you.

What counselling? Counselling for what? For having dinner with some Christians? Judging from your rationale, the Prime Minister and his whole entourage to the Vatican might have to attend counselling to ya? Sometime ago I attended a funeral of the son of a dear friend of mine in a church. I stood up when they were singing hymns and sat in silence when prayers were being said. Do I have to be counselled too?

This is the kind of thing which is making Malaysia a laughing capital of the world nowadays. Some years ago I remember, there was a text message sent out by none other a mufti alleging that a number of kids were about to be proselytised (is my spelling correct?) at a church. It caused an uproar. But of course the good mufti was not hauled up for anything although recently a certain Penang lady was hauled up by the police for allegedly urging Christians to walk for whatever reason.

The thing which I would like to ask is this. Is there any necessity at all to do this kind of thing?

Muslims in Malaysia seem to be very weak indeed. We cannot listen to certain music group. Cannot watch MTV. Cannot go to concerts, even to concerts by the completely fagotty Michael Learns to Rock, for God’s sake!!! These guys rhymes the word “car” with “star” for God’s sake! Cannot watch certain films. Cannot tahan seeing women’s ketiak in public. Cannot tahan seeing non-Muslims eating or drinking during puasa month.

We need to be protected all the time. Otherwise our aqidah would be gone. And we would become kafir. And of course we would then all go to hell.

One question struck me. If Muslims in Malaysia are so easily persuaded to leave Islam, there must be something wrong with the state of Islam in Malaysia, isn’t it? I mean, why would the Muslims in Malaysia so easily persuaded to do so then? Perhaps then, JAIS and the all the mullahs should look into this aspect rather than blaming everything on other faiths.

A word of advise to JAIS. We are a multi-cultural-faiths society. We need to be respectful to others. It doesn’t matter whether Islam is the official religion of the country or whether it is the faith of the majority of the people in our country.

Islam teaches us moderation. And Islam teaches us to be respectful of others.

Now, article 11 of the Federal Constitution does guarantee freedom of religion to every person in Malaysia (even though that person is not a citizen of Malaysia). Admittedly, paragraph 4 of the said article also permits laws to be made to “control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”

I do not know whether there is any such law in Selangor. But for argument’s sake, let’s assume that it has.

Nowhere in the law it is stated that Muslims cannot eat or attend a dinner with Christians, be it in a church compound or at the zoo or anywhere else. That is why even our Honourable Prime Minister attended a dinner with the Christian sometime ago (remember the hoo-haas about removing crucifixes and stuffs?).

If there are reasonable suspicion (I repeat, reasonable suspicion – which means not any kind of grandmother suspicion) that some groups are trying to propagate whatever religious doctrine to Muslims, then by all means please take the appropriate action. Please note, I said, appropriate action, not any grandmother action.

Now what is appropriate and what is not? Well, again, we live in a multi-cultural-faiths society. Our actions must not be one which would or could give rise to disharmony. That is all.

By all means, JAIS may investigate the allegation quietly. How to do that? Well, our special branch is one of the best in the world. Recently they even managed to sniff out a plot to wage war against the King; a plot to turn this country into a communist state; and they, according to the Deputy IGP and Home Minister also managed to avoid a riot like the London riot in Kuala Lumpur. Yes. They are that good.

So JAIS, how to investigate? Ask assistance from our special branch. They will know how to sniff this kinda thing within seconds.

When all or sufficient evidence are gathered of such activities, then JAIS can go on and exercise its powers lah. Call people for statements. Arrests the people involved. Charge them in Courts. Habis cerita kan?

Better still, to be civilised, it would be better for JAIS, in the name of 1Malaysia, under those circumstances, to call up the church or group in question and confront them with the evidence which JAIS has collected. Let’s hear what they have to say. If there is not reasonable or acceptable explanation, JAIS can proceed to charge them.

That’s it. No drama. No raid. No inspection. Nothing at all.

Before I end this, one more point. Religion is a state matter. Selangor is governed by Pakatan Rakyat. I then presume JAIS is a state agency. The Menteri Besar apparently did not agree with the action. Question – why wasn’t he briefed on the “inspection”, knowing how sensitive this issue is?

As a political party, PAS, which is part of Pakatan Rakyat, also apparently disagree with JAIS’ inspection. But Hassan Ali, a state EXCO member, defended JAIS. The MB then imposed a blanket gag order.

May I ask bluntly, what the hell? Do you know what you are doing or not? If so, are you opposed or are you in favour of it? Which is bloody which?

If the MB doesn’t agree and one lone EXCO member is against that, what should be the natural consequence to that? My question is simple. What is the official position of the Selangor State Government about this whole episode. Never mind Hassan Ali. Never mind Tan Sri Khalid. Never mind PAS or DAP.

WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE SELANGOR STATE GOVERNMENT?

That many of us would like to know.

I would like to end this post with this verse. May we all get His wisdom and mercy.

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ مِنْ ذَكَرٍ وَأُنْثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ

O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. (translation : Shakir)

O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware. (translation: Pickthal)

London riots #2

2011-08-11T11:04:00.001+08:00

Someone sent a posting to a legal group (of which I am a member) of an article by Sir Hugh Orde, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, England to the Guardian today.

Sir Hugh’ article is in response to David Cameron’s call for more extreme measures – such as water cannons and batons – to be taken by the police in order to deal with the current rioting in England. That article is published in the Guardian's website.

I would like to reproduce what Sir Hugh says as it demonstrate an approach to policing as yet unknown to all of us.

First and foremost he says:

“One of the greatest strengths of British policing is that operational decision-making is conducted not by politicians, but by professional chief police officers who have spent their whole career in policing. While David Cameron today referred to some of the more extreme measures available to us, they are not new, and responsibility for their deployment remains entirely a matter for chief officers. There can be no confusion here at all; it is a fact that we cannot be ordered to police in a certain way but we will be held robustly accountable for what we choose to do or not do.”

On the usage of water cannons and batons, this is what he says:

“As one of only two officers in the country to have ordered the use of water cannon and baton rounds in public-order policing, my professional judgment is it would be the wrong tactic, in the wrong circumstances at this moment. Both require an extremely precise situation. The use of water cannon, while logistically difficult, works against large stationary crowds throwing missiles at police or, as I witnessed in Northern Ireland, at other communities. It achieves distance between police and unlawful crowds that is often vital.

Utilising baton rounds, an even more severe tactic, is fundamentally to protect life. When I ordered their use, again in Northern Ireland, my officers were being attacked by blast bombs and live fire. I would always use both with a heavy heart, but it is always an issue of proportionality.”

The rationale for policing which he takes is as follows:

“What we have seen so far is not soft policing, and although I understand the enthusiasm of politicians and communities for robust measures, excessive force will destroy our model of policing in the long term. What we must hang on to in all of this is the British model of policing, premised on human rights and the minimum use of force. ” (emphasis is mine)

This is a quotable quote:

“We police with consent and must be professional, proportionate, fair and justifiable to the public at all times.”

Meanwhile, back at home, our Deputy IGP was quoted by a report saying:

“…we are able to avoid these scary and tragic scenes (referring to the London riots) from erupting here in our beloved country.”

“These are the nightmares that we are fighting hard to avoid and prevent. Street protest should always be avoided as we will never know what it can turn into.”

I don’t know which approach is better. There are always two sides to the coin. In Malaysia right now, there are two extremes sandwiching a small middle section.

I will let Malaysians decide which one they prefer.

London riots

2011-08-10T10:26:00.001+08:00

I have been rather sarcastically asked on Twitter such questions as, “you support freedom of assembly, you want Malaysians to riot like the Londoners?”. Another twitterati asked me, “Art, you support the riots in London?”.

Frankly, I am amused to my bone by such questions.

I am amused because the attempts at justifying the banning of public rallies in Malaysia by referring to the riotous behaviour of some others displays a certain degree of shallowness, if not lack of intelligence.

We all have freedom as human beings. There is no restriction on what we eat, for example. But eating without limitations, both in term of quantity and quality of the food, could harm our health. Do the majority of us eat until we harm ourselves? Granted, there are people who eat without a thought to their calorie intake; fat contents and the attendant harmful effects of the food. The point is there are also people who exercise their freedom to eat in a responsible manner.

So, may I ask, shall the State pass laws to restrict our freedom to eat just because some people eat until they die?

Think about it. Some people are simply yobs and thugs. These people did not rally or attend a demonstration as an exercise of their freedom to assemble. They are not pursuing any valid or legitimate cause. They are just there to create trouble. Some are just there to loot. Some to look for a victim to rape. That’s the difference.

If anybody fails to see the difference, then I dare say he or she is blinkered and is all too eager to justify the unjustifiable by drawing a misconceived comparison.

The Tottenham riot apparently started from several peaceful rallies. Those rallies took place because the people wanted to show their anger against the police who had allegedly shot a guy by the name of Mark Duggan in a mini-cab. The police said he was a gangster and he shot at the police when he was stopped. So the police shot him dead.

The people got angry with the police and they started a peaceful rally.

We can surely learn a thing or two from this story.

Firstly, in modern democracies, police killings are frowned upon by the society. In the US for example, there is an automatic inquiry into every case of discharge of arm or killing by the police. This is different from the inquest.

The function of the inquest is to determine how the deceased died. It makes findings of facts but not of guilt or the lack of it.

The inquiry however requires the officer to justify his or her shooting or killing.

Compare that to Malaysia. Our police kills even those who drive without license! Those who panic upon seeing a road block and tried to evade it are also shot at sometimes. Once in a while, we would have news of the police shooting dead not one, but four or five people who are suspected rapists, robbers or gang members. In other cases our police would storm into houses and shoot even a pregnant lady. Those who drive off despite being asked to stop would be shot at without hesitation and any regard for the safety of the passengers in the vehicle. Normal and healthy people die in police custody. There was one who died frothing in his mouth.

I wouldn’t say that our police acts with impunity. But the fact is as members of the public, we do not have a clue whether all these shootings and killings could firstly, be avoided and secondly, are necessary. We do not even know whether there were several other options available to the police to apprehend all these suspected bad people and whether the police has availed themselves of all those options before opening fire and kill that person.

In the UK, obviously the public take these matters seriously. One guy is shot and it caused a riot!

How about here? Well, before the age if the internet, we wouldn’t even know about the killings. The newspaper and TV3 or RTM would set out the news with pictures of parangs and old pistols allegedly recovered from the deceased.

Thanks to the internet, nowadays we become more and more aware. The Aminul Rasyid killing is a case in point. He was only 14. His only offences were probably driving without a license; he did not stop after being ordered to do so and driving fast and recklessly while fleeing the police. He was killed!

In the UK, the whole government could have gone down if that had happened there. Over here, we just made noise. The police officer would be charged for some offences. Then we forget.

That proves something. We Malaysians are a peaceful lot. We are so tranquil that a foreigner would be hard press to know whether we are sleeping or in a coma or just plain dead. We are so peaceful we probably make Gandhi looked aggressive. But that is us. We don’t go out rioting for things like police killing. I don’t think we would go on a riot for anything, really.

When Aminul Rasyid and Kugan were killed, did anyone – anyone at all, including their parents – run amok? No. Because we are a peaceful people.

With that kind of culture, could any reasonable person, such as the IGP or Home Minister conclude that any assembly of the people of Malaysia could turn into a riot?

Why then harass people assembling in some car parks holding some candles to support whatever cause or causes which they believe in? What is there in a rally to ask for something to which they are legally entitled?

The second point to note is this. The London riots do not exemplify the danger of freedom to assembly. It rather exemplifies the abject failure of their police force to control the crowd and to “read” the general feelings of anger permeating the air. That is their failure.

I have said it before and I will say it again. In a rally or peaceful assembly, the bounden duty of the police force is to ensure a peaceful, safe and orderly assembly. That is their duty. This, obviously, they failed to do in London.

Now, if the police are failures, would we punish the people by restricting their constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble?

If so, since our police has totally failed to arrest the acid splasher – who has, it seems, disappeared from everybody’s radar and is probably now laughing at all of us – shall we also ban everybody from walking on the streets in Bangsar and Brickfields?

You tell me.

Money matters

2011-08-09T13:11:00.001+08:00

The outlook is grim I must say.

Underscoring the seriousness of the US debt-payment horror is the fact that as of July this year, Apple Inc’s nett operating cash balance of USD 76.4b far outperformed the entire US as a nation. At the same time, the US, as a nation, had a nett operating cash balance of only USD73.7b. (source: BBC report).

The US government debt is projected by S&P to hit 11 trillion this year, which would be equivalent to 75% of its gross domestic product or all the wealth that the US economy would generate this year. S&P also estimated the debt would increase to $14 trillion by 2015 and top $20 trillion by 2021, which at that point would mean that it will be 85 per cent of GDP.

In a grim postulation, S&P says in a worst-case scenario, US government debt could outstrip all the wealth generated in the world’s largest economy by 2021. (source: here).

With those kind of numbers, it was not surprising at all that the US credit rating was downgraded a notch from AAA rating to AA+. (source: BBC report).

How do all these affect us?

Back home, the numbers aren’t all rosy as well.

As of last year, our national debt was down from RM236.18b in 2008 to RM233.92b. (source: the Star report). That sounds good as it is on a downward trend. However, an analysis of our foreign debts as compared coupled with our domestic borrowings as well as the percentage in the increase of our debts as compared to the increase in our GDP over several years paints a really worrying picture. See the analysis here.

The points are these:

While our foreign debts decreased from RM236.18b in 2008 to RM233.92b, our domestic debts increased from RM217b in 2006 to RM371b in 2010.
Between 2006 to June 2010, our gross domestic product grew at an average of 6.6% while the total debts grew at an average of 10.2%.
Total debts to GDP ratio therefore increased by 39% from 64% in 2006 to 73% in 2010.

What the above means is that we are borrowing faster than we are producing income.

According to the US Census Bureau, between the months of January to May this year, the US’ exports to Malaysia totals USD6.1b while our exports are worth USD10.5b. The US Department of State's website shows that he United States is Malaysia's third-largest trading partner and Malaysia is the eighteenth-largest trading partner of the United States with annual two-way trade amounting to $33b.

The United States is the largest foreign investor in Malaysia on a cumulative basis, and was the largest source of new foreign direct investment in Malaysia in 2010 with direct investment in the manufacturing sector in Malaysia as of year-end 2009 of $15.1 billion, with billions of dollars in additional investment in the oil and gas and financial services sectors of the economy.

Such is the importance of the US to Malaysia. It goes without saying that a US in financial bad shape would inevitably equal to a Malaysia in economic doldrums.

Meanwhile, Malaysia’s Economic Transformation Program (ETP), an ambitious project to convert the country into a fully developed nation by 2020 remains critically linked to foreign investment. The ETP requires annual foreign investment in the range of $11 billion to fund a quarter of the proposed projects. However, average annual investment since 1997 has only been $3.1 billion.

A March 2011 report by Bank of America Merrill Lynch ranked Malaysia the second least popular market after Colombia among global emerging market fund managers. Malaysia, thus, is in no position to project a picture of chaos and disruption to the investors from outside.

In addition, recent well known events, the details of which are all too familiar to many, if not all of us, do not endear Malaysia too well to foreign investors despite strenuous efforts by the government to attract them.

Yesterday, Goldman Sachs revised our GDP forecast for this year from 5.4% to 5% with a similar cut of 0.4% next year from 5.6%. (source: the Malaysian Insider report).

Considering the state of the US economy and its burgeoning debts, the US government might just increase interest rates in order to lessen public spending; impose higher import duties on certain goods; impose some strict import conditions as well as broaden its protectionism policy over some industries.

The increase in interest rates would restrict cash outflows as well as investment activities thereby resulting in decrease of consumer spending and imports by the US. This is bound to adversely affect our exports to the US. Standing at USD33b a year, a 10% decrease in our exports to the US would mean a snatch of USD3.3b from our liquidity. I wonder how many business would fold up and how many jobs will be lost in such situation.

Added to that the severely weakened US dollar as opposed to our Ringgit, things would not look too bright for our exporters as they lose competitiveness in terms of currency exchange. Perhaps we should take a serious re-look at our development policy and pay sufficient attention to the areas in which we are strong and not forgetting our traditional bread and butter, namely, the agricultural sector. Modern and thus efficient food production may be a good option as well.

The government must come up with a plan to counter the US meltdown – as well as the Europe meltdown which is fast forthcoming – as soon as possible. failure to do so would just exacerbate the current economics hiccups that we are facing.

Locally, living costs have been escalating lately as inflation rises. As of June this year, it was 3.5% although realistically, the people on the streets are feeling the pinch a lot more.

In order to alleviate the suffering of the people who are finding it tough to cope with the rising in the costs of living, the government yesterday announced a half-month bonus to the 1.3 million civil servants and a sum of RM500 to every pensioner.

The intention was good. Our Honourable Prime Minister was reportedly saying the bonus payment “can lighten the burden... for the upcoming Aidil Fitri celebration.”

I am happy for the civil servants. The total pay out is RM2b. However, in my humble opinion that pay out would do little, if not nothing, to solve the problem at hand, especially the problem of the rising costs of living.

Can we all imagine a total sum of RM2b being spent in the next 10 days or so? How does that help in terms of controlling spiralling prices and inflation? In fact, quite to the contrary, this 2b additional spending within such a short span of time would only serve as inflationary factor.

The bonus could have been given in the form of a saving instrument for example. The government could give out ASB certificates to the civil servants (as well as other debt instruments to non-Bumi civil servants) to the tune of their bonus entitlement thereby ensuring some savings for the civil servants as opposed to cash pay outs which will do nothing but to flare up inflations.

I could be wrong as I am not an economist. But I have been opposed to stop-gap measures for a long time.

To me, all problems, especially national problems, will have to be met with a holistic solution. Stop-gap measures look good for a while, until more and more gaps appear in the future and we would run out of plugs to plug those gaps.

Syabas 8TV!

2011-08-03T12:09:00.001+08:00

By now, many of us would have been aware of the “public service” advertisements which have been pulled out by 8TV.

For those who have not seen it yet, the awesome “public service” advertisements could be accessed via a Malaysian Insider report yesterday.

It is amazing that some people could take leave from their intelligence in full public view nowadays. And we seem to be doing it with the consistency of Datuk Nicole Davids in the squash courts. Syabas.

The thing which struck me was the nonchalant attitude shown by Media Prima chief operating officer Ahmad Izham Omar when the advertisements were creating a storm in cyberspace yesterday. He was reported as saying, on his twitter account:

“Chill guys. Don’t overthink the ads. Its written, produced and directed by a multi-racial team. If you overanalyse, anything will be bad.”

As a media man, he should know that a message driven public service advertisement would at some point of time be dissected and analysed by the very target of those advertisements. And when the advertisements turn stereotyping into an art, surely they will touch on raw nerves.

One does not have to “overthink” about those advertisements to find them offensive and insensitive. The fact that it was produced by a “multi-racial team” does not negate the somewhat insidious stereotyping contained in the advertisements.

The advice to “chill out” was, to me, even more insulting than the advertisements themselves.

Speaking of insult, I am sure many Muslims would find those advertisements insulting as well. How weak are we, Muslims? We would be breaking fast when we see other people eat or drink? Or we would be having a hard-on at a pasar Ramadhan when we see girls in sleeveless tank top showing their arm pit eh?

The ritual of fasting is meant to cleanse not only our physical body but also our soul. We are supposed to be humbled by the experience of fasting. We are supposed to learn the sufferings of those who are not as lucky as we are, those who do not have food and drinks like us day in day out throughout the year as opposed to only 30 days or so a year.

Why are we so weak so much so that we have to ask people of other faith not to drink or eat in front of us? For God’s sake, the Prophet and his followers fought the Badar battle on the 17th day of Ramadhan in the year 624. And here, now in 2011, we seek the non-Muslims’ understanding not to eat in front of us in Ramadhan. Awesome.

I just love seeing how the Chinese-looking girl was portrayed as a greedy person trying to make a pig out of herself with all the food. If 8TV crew could go to one of those hotels which serves the RM100++ buka puasa buffet, perhaps they would see that Muslims too put mountainous amount of food on their plate too which at the end is not consumed.

There are many messages which could be delivered during Ramadhan. Messages about how we all should be moderate in our buka puasa meals; about how we all should not forget the sufferings of those in poverty and those children who have to work on the streets of Chow Kit to fend for themselves; about how we all should not just think that Ramadhan is all about avoiding food and drink in day time; about how we should all strive to respect each other, to treat each other with good manners and in civility; about how we should all detoxify our soul from greed, corruption, intoxication with all things materials etc etc.

Instead we chose to demean our neighbours and friends with insensitive and almost senseless stereotyping this Ramadhan. Just a few days ago I remember our Honourable Prime Minister preaching for acceptance instead of tolerance. What have the people at 8TV learned from that exhortation?

Well, the advertisements have been pulled out. The chief operating officer of Media Prima had reportedly said:

“Ok guys. We’re pulling out the ads. Thank you very much for your concern.”

He followed up by asking:

“And now to more important things... Does a horn section sound better with 4 trombones? Or would just 3 trombones be enough?”

Yes, life goes on, isn’t it? There are much more important things in life.

As for the horn section with 3 or 4 trombones, I would surely hope 8TV is not going to air a programme on it. Because I fear they might just go and inspect some horns on some cars and air their findings.

Making offence in Twitterjaya

2011-08-01T10:04:00.001+08:00

There is an obvious lack of misunderstanding about the so called freedom of speech in cyberspace. Too many people think that they are free to say anything about everything in any way they like in cyberspace.

This misconception is further compounded by some of our Ministers’ statements that “special laws or rules” will be made to govern publications in cyberspace. Those kind of statements give the impression that the cyberspace is not governed by our “normal” laws and that whatever is published in cyberspace is not subject to such laws. Hence the necessity for “special laws or rules” to govern publications in cyberspace.

That is one of the most biggest misconceptions in this new millennium.

In so far as Malaysia is concerned, the only laws which do not govern the cyberspace is the necessity for licenses or permits before a publication is made. Apart from that, I can’t think of any laws which do not apply to the cyberspace, especially when it comes to publications of materials, be it in audio, video or written form.

If somebody publishes an article in cyberspace about another person’s character which is not true and that publication adversely affects the person’s character or credibility, the law of defamation applies just as it does if such publication was made in a magazine or newspaper. It is as simple as that. For those who would like further reference on this, just go and read Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (Australian High Court).

The mere fact that our government has issued the Bill of Guarantee does not in any way mean that we can do whatever we like in cyberspace. All publications in cyberspace are still subject to the laws. Pure and simple.

The only thing about the cyberspace is anonymity. That makes it a bit more difficult for the prosecution to prove that the maker of the offending publication is the accused person. How does the prosecution prove that the accused person was the actual person who published the offending publication?

The second thing which poses a difficult issue in any prosecution for offending publications in cyberspace is jurisdiction. The Gutnick’s case above demonstrates that.

In short, I am writing this in Kuala Lumpur. This article is stored in digital form in a server somewhere in the world. I must confess I do not know where the server is. It could be in Timbuktu for all I know.

As and when you hit on this blog from your computer in say Ipoh, this blog will appear on your monitor. You will then read what I have written in Ipoh.

Let’s just say I am sued in Kuala Lumpur for defamation for my article. The question is whether the Courts in Kuala Lumpur would have the jurisdiction to try my case. That would depend where the publication was made.

Questions regarding jurisdiction is imperative because a Court can only try a case which is within it’s territorial jurisdiction.

In a normal hard copy publication, it is easy to determine jurisdiction. Publication is deemed to have happened at the place the hard copy of the offending article is read. But in a publication on the internet, the article s stored somewhere in the cyberworld. When somebody access the article by clicking on its url, only then the article would appear on the monitor of that somebody. Being so, can it be said that the writer had “published” the article when in actual fact it was the reader who had “accessed” the writer’s article? All these are vex legal and factual questions.

In the week preceding the Bersih rally, a certain lady published a twitter post. That twitter post can be read here.

Considering the circumstances prevailing at the time of the publication of that twitter post, my immediate reaction upon reading that post was one of absolute wonderment at her IQ level. How stupid was that?

Now it is alleged that she is actually a video journalist for Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng. She is actually under the employment of the state government!

We have read of how an over-enthusiastic officer of the Prime Minister had asked that crucifixes be removed from a church during the PM’s visit to a Church earlier this year. We have also heard of many closed-door seminars where some civil servants made some really nonsensical racist remarks about non-Malays.

The condemnations and ridicules which came in from all sides against such acts were swift, intense and hard-hitting.

Can we all imagine what kind of condemnation against the BN government would be had the above twitter post been posted by a federal civil servant?

I think that particular twitter post was uncalled for, most particularly considering the circumstances under which it was made, namely, during the week preceding the Bersih rally. If I were to be nasty, I would say that twitter post carried with it an insidious intention.

Above all, I find that twitter post really, for the lack of a better word, stupid.

I don’t know whether the state government or Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng should apologise. But if I were him, I would be close to sacking her, frankly speaking.

As the story goes, of course, in the normal scheme of thing in Malaysia nowadays, a certain very concerned citizen, Mr Tony Yew lodged a police report against her. Now she is under investigation.

Malaysiakini reports that the police had gone to her house, checked some files and confiscated an iMac computer including a modem and took some snapshots of her twitter account.

Hahahahhahaha…first of all, this is a classic operation by our men in blue. What are they investigating? Apparently an offence under the Sedition Act arising from her twitter post. Why the need to confiscate her computer and modem? What would the computer and modem show? How are those gadgets going to assist them in the investigation? Why didn’t they confiscate the mouse as well? And what about the keyboard?

As for the snapshots of her twitter account, haven’t our police heard of screen save or printing the screen?

Oh, Mr Tony Yew. I remember him.

I am not a follower of his twitter account. Nor was he a follower of mine.

One day I was told by one of my follower that a certain Tony Yew had been criticising one of my article without tagging me. I could not care less. Everybody criticises my articles anyway.

During the week preceding the Bersih rally, I was, on some days, engaged in a rather engaging and civil discourse about the rally with YB Dato’ Abdul Rahman Dahlan. I was telling the YB – not to say that he needed any telling, though – about the right of the people to assemble and the duties of the police to maintain an orderly and safe assembly. The good YB was saying that the assembly would be harmful to public order.

We were engaging each other in a very civil manner and that was not the first time we did so. YB Rahman Dahlan is one of the few BN MPs with whom I find pleasure to engage on several issues on twitter.

In the middle of our friendly debate, suddenly one Tony Yew chipped in with a twitter post addressed to me and the YB. That post says something to the following effect;

“Why don’t you stick to what you do best? Reality and theory not the same.”

My first reaction was “wtf”? Who the flinking shyte is this guy? Stick to what I do best? Why don’t I stick it up yours, I was thinking.

And so I replied:

“Tony Yew or whatever your name, why don’t YOU stick to what you do best and don’t come and disturb me and my timeline?”

He never came back to disturb me again after that.

You see, apart from the usual laws and rules being applicable to the cyberworld, the usual unwritten laws about good manners and civility also apply while we are in cyberspace. So, if nobody, in real life, should barge in another person’s bedroom – what more, when they do not know each other – nobody should barge in another person’s space in cyberworld without the normal courtesy.

Just in case anybody doesn’t know that.

Ha ha of the week*

2011-07-21T15:23:00.001+08:00

*before some Nazis decide to charge me for whatever offence, allow me to say that this post IS A JOKE and being a joke, IT IS NOT TRUE and is NEVER MEANT TO BE TRUE.

I received an e mail with the following joke today. I do not know who the original author is. I hope he or she doesn’t mind me sharing it here.

Top Ten Reasons Why Terrorists Will Never Succeed in Attacking Malaysia

#1. Terrorist decides to blow up KLCC. He drives to KLCC with the intention of planting the bomb there, gets stuck in a 2-hour jam, and blows himself up in frustration. PLAN FAIL.

#2. Terrorist decides to bomb Ipoh as a practice session before targeting KL. He drives for the first time on the highway to Ipoh trusting the signboards to get him there, and ends up in Lumut. Terrorist drowns himself in the sea in frustration. PLAN FAIL.

#3. Terrorist decides to blow up Puduraya. While walking to his destination, the bag in which he keeps his bombs gets snatched by snatch thieves on a motorcycle. He pulls on his bag's strap desperately and dies after being dragged 100m on the road. PLAN FAIL.

#4. Terrorist decides to blow up Port Klang. He succeeds!! But the next day The Star, NST, Berita Harian and Utusan publish an article on page 10 headlined "Boy playing with fireworks injured in minor explosion." PLAN FAIL.

#5. Terrorist decides to bomb Johor Bahru. He rents a house as headquarters and the night before the dastardly deed, three men with parangs break into his house, robs him and kills him. PLAN FAIL.

#6. Terrorist decides to bomb Kedah to paralyze the rice bowl of Malaysia. That night, while secretly setting up the bomb during a heavy thunderstorm (so that no one sees him), Timah Tasoh Dam hits danger level, authorities open the dam gates and he is swept away in the floods. PLAN FAIL.

#7. Terrorist decides to blow up Bukit Bintang. Upon arrival at destination, he is accosted by a pimp and spends the night in the arms of a beautiful woman. At dawn, authorities raid the place and arrest him. PLAN FAIL.

#8. Terrorist decides to blow up the MACC building as he is a strong advocate of corruption. He enters the building, but before he manages to plant his bomb, he is found dead after a fall from the 14th floor window. PLAN FAIL.

#9. Terrorist decides to blow up Serdang Hospital. He enters the hospital lobby, hears a loud crashing sound and looks up to see the ceiling collapsing on him. He dies. PLAN FAIL.

#10. Terrorist decides to blow up Genting Highlands. On the way up the mountain, a speeding bus driven by a 18-year-old boy without a driving licence crashes into his car and kills him instantly. PLAN FAIL.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
MALAYSIA IS INVINCIBLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS!!

Gormless

2011-07-18T17:11:00.001+08:00

UiTM has apparently invited nominations for the Ibrahim Ali Award. The award is reserved for those “students who have proven they have "clear and consistent" principles in upholding their race.”

(Source: IMPAK UiTM).

Great. Congratulations UiTM.

For this act, I am bestowing UiTM with the Manage-To-Entertain-Despite-Total-Lobotomy-Done-On-You Award.

This award entitles you to a free “noodle eatery hair and shirt guard”.

Damn, since UiTM’s initiative is so good, I am throwing in a 2nd prize, which is :-

Oh well, UiTM is so good, I would throw in a 3rd prize as well (I am feeling generous today) :-

Soon, Malaysia will have its inaugural entry into this website, I suppose.

Malaysia Boley!

The Queen committed a diplomatic blunder!

2011-07-15T09:26:00.001+08:00

ARTiculations demands a full and unreserved apology. Now!

Bersih – my final thoughts

2011-07-14T10:15:00.001+08:00

“Wise men profits more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise.” – Cato the Elder (234 BC – 149 BC) from Plutarch, Lives.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake that the government had made in the Bersih issue was to isolate a large section of the society from itself, anger them and convert them into a Bersih sympathiser and/or supporter.

At some point of time before the Bersih rally – in my opinion it was about the time Pak Samad Said was hauled to the police station – the Bersih movement had transcended its electoral reform objective into a full scale platform for the people to vent their frustrations, disappointments, angst and anger to the government.

To put it crassly, from that point of time, Bersih became a platform for many people to show their middle finger to the government, for whatever personal reason(s) they may have.

All the government had to do in the early days of Bersih 2.0 was to deal with Bersih and its demands. The demands were not about the escalating inflation and price of household items; not about Teoh Beng Hock or Sarbaini; not about corruption; not about electricity rate hike; not about Astro price hike; not about the police, MACC or whichever agency.

The demands were just about a fair and just election or what was perceived by Bersih as such. That was it. It was politically related but not politically motivated. (For the uninitiated, there is a difference between the two). The fact that some opposition political parties were in solidarity with Bersih did not demote Bersih into a political party with the inevitable and attendant political baggage.

The premise of Bersih was an idea, a thought. The idea was our election process is not fair. The resulting conclusion from that idea was that our electoral process needs reform or at least a change. That was all.

Being an idea, or a thought, Bersih operates and infects the masses insidiously. It is in their head that the idea is planted. It is not in their behaviour. A Bersih sympathiser or supporter, with the said planted idea, would not act in a way an Al-Qaeda member would. He or she was not going to strap C4 around his or her body, go to the mall on a Sunday, and buy the proverbial ticket to heaven by blowing himself or herself up.

Planted with that idea, a Bersih sympathiser or supporter would try to convince others that that idea was correct. That idea will infest and continue to infest.

The wearing of yellow t-shirts with the word Bersih was just a way or means employed by carrier of such idea to make known that he or she subscribed to that idea to the open world.

The yellow t-shirts were not even a manifestation of the idea which he or she carried. With or without the yellow t-shirts, the idea still infests their mind. Similarly, the colour of the t-shirts, did not matter. It could have been pink for all they cared but the idea stayed the same.

The idea, as I said earlier, was that the election process is not fair and it needs reform.

And so, this was what, allegorically, the government was facing about a month before the rally. There were some yellow mosquitoes flying around in some wet markets; shopping malls; seminar rooms and on the streets. That was it. Nothing more.

It was like the proverbial bloody fly in the car cockpit. Irritating, yes. Annoying, yes. Threatening, absolutely not.

And how exactly did the government react to these handful yellow mosquitoes? Well, it took out some really large and heavy cannons and shot the mosquitoes!

The government firstly denied that our election process was not fair. That was okay. Because by doing that, the government was actually trying to supplant an opposing idea. But what it did later was beyond rationale. Any strategist, political or otherwise, worth his or her salt, would cringe in disbelief.

It went out seizing the yellow t-shirts. People who wore the offending attire were arrested. How did arresting people wearing yellow and seizing the yellow item assist in erasing the idea which Bersih had planted? The idea was in the head. That idea did not reside in the yellow t-shirts. That was the government reacting according to the proverbial “marahkan nyamuk kelambu dibakar” (loosely translated, angry with the mosquitoes, burn the mosquito net) way.

First, the public reaction was one of disbelief. Soon it became a joke. The government, the police, the Home Minister and all else who were perceived to be the instigators of the act of banning the colour yellow became a big joke.

The joke then became even a bigger joke. That was when the government and its machinery, direct and indirect, embarked into phase two of their “war propaganda”.

I have stated in The Doctor is Not In that an oppressor would cling to every “fact”, even manufactured ones, to justify its oppression. I quoted Umberto Eco, in "Turning Back The Clock" who said:

"In general, in order to maintain popular support for their decisions, dictatorships point the finger at a country, group, race, or secret society that is plotting against the people under the dictator. All forms of populism, even contemporary ones, try to obtain consensus by talking of a threat from abroad, or from internal groups." (emphasis is mine).

How true is that? Umberto Eco could have been talking about Malaysia actually. Did he have a digital crystal ball or what?

Barely recovering from shaking our collective head over the arrest of people wearing yellow, the government went into ape mode. Bersih was infiltrated by communists. It was also funded by Christian groups. Some Ministers and the police then said there were evidence that Bersih had certain “foreign elements” bent on creating havoc and overthrowing the government.

All classic wartime propaganda. But really, who was at war? Nobody except for the government.

Sticking with the “war” theme, the government’s well known, but the most laughable and idiotic shit stirrer, Perkasa and its leader, Ibrahim Ali, launched a counter movement and called themselves Gerak Aman (Peace Movement, in English), with Ibrahim Ali as its “war general.”

So, we had a peace movement with a war general. And a war general without any war to go to. He then promptly issued a really peaceful statement, ie, the Chinese had better stocked up food and not come out to the street on July 9th.

This was followed by some silat organisations declaring that it will “wage war” against Bersih participants. The next day this organisation appointed itself as the “3rd line of defence” of Malaysia, an appointment which was duly accorded official approval by none other than the Prime Minister himself later.

At this point in time, the government’s handling of the Bersih issue had moved from disbelief-dom, to jokes-ville and now to a surreal and burlesque town. The government had then managed to anger the Bersih sympathisers and supporters; isolated the Christians and Chinese; and turned itself into some kind of a mixture of Robin Williams and Russell Brand (no insult meant to Katy Perry, of course).

Ambiga, the Chairperson of Bersih was instantaneously declared as an enemy of Islam. Quite how Bersih’s electoral reform agenda became intertwined with race and faith is quite beyond many to conjure. But enemy of Islam she was. That managed to isolate the non-Muslims and even the thinking Muslims from the government’s stance.

So, after that, the pesky yellow mosquitoes problem had turned into a full scale stampede of biblical proportion, joined in by the elephants, lions, tigers, snakes and what have you. Congratulations.

The climax of all of these – the mother of all fcuk ups – to me, was the mounting of roadblocks during the morning peak hours from Wednesday the 6th of July onwards. The object of this “war counter propaganda” tactic was obviously to make the people believe that they had to go through difficulties – ie the traffic jam – because of Bersih. Shallow does not even begin to describe this action.

By this time, even the normal apathetic middle-class Malaysians who could not even be bothered to register themselves as voters became agitated and upset.

This apathetic middle-class are a very comfortable lot. They will not move their ass to do anything if that would mean bringing themselves out of their comfort zone. Finding the TV remote control is bringing themselves out of their comfort zone, to these people. They will not be arsed to do anything until and unless they become uncomfortable.

And of course, being stuck in a traffic jam in their second-hand BMWs, Benz, Alphard and whatever was uncomfortable to them. And they told themselves, enough with this crap. I am going to show my middle finger to the police!

By this time, almost the whole section of the urban society was isolated by the government. Even the civil servants who were late for work were thinking of joining the rally.

Speaking of the police, apart from being busy carrying guns and waving the traffic to pass by, they managed to find parangs and molotov cocktails at Sogo. There you have it. Bersih was bent on creating havoc.

Why parangs? Why not guns and bombs? And to think about it, the molotov cocktails were made in plastic bottles. Who in their right mind would make molotov in plastic bottles, hullo? From which university did the guy graduate? Off campus? Online course?

Disbelief. Joke. Burlesque. Ridicule. Anger.

What a transformation.

The easiest thing to do was to fight the idea that our election process needs reform. That was all that was needed. An idea is fought by firstly, showing that that idea is not quite correct. Or that it was not credible. Then neutralise that idea with a better and more acceptable idea.

An idea is not fought by arresting the people having that idea. Or by banning a colour depicting subscription to that idea. Or by declaring the person heading the movement perpetuating that idea as anti-Islam. Or that it was Christian idea. Oh my God. Fail!

Now, let’s not talk about what happened during the rally. Suffice if I say that the people joining the rally were not the hooligans they were made out to be. We all could watch all the YouTube videos and decide for ourselves as to who the real hooligans were.

The thing which I want to comment about is this.

If the government’s handling of Bersih before the rally was beyond belief in its irrationality and unreasonableness, its handling AFTER the rally is not any better, if not far worse.

The IGP became a laughing stock when he quickly announced that only 6000 people attended the rally. Then the Home Minister chipped in to say the police was fair and in fact very restrain in their approach on the 9th of July. The Prime Minister said the police were a picture of tranquillity and displayed a monk-like attitude towards the rally goers.

Ha ha and bloody ha.

Then came the I-could-do-better-than-you rhetoric. This is the preferred 8 year old strategy. My father has bigger kahoona than your father, you know? I could bring out 3 million people if I want to, sais the Honourable Prime Minister. This was recently followed up by Chua Soi Lek who said he could bring 50000 Chinese to the street. MIC however had remained mum. That’s either because it is a clever party or because it doesn’t know how many member it could bring to the street.

The Minister Liow denied teargas was fired into the compound of Tung Shin hospital. Chua Soi Lek, not be left out, chipped in to say the police had to teargas the hospital in order to protect the patients. And today, 11 doctors from that hospitals states their willingness to affirm affidavits under oath that the police did in fact shoot water and teargas into the compound of the hospital on July 9th. They said the police even entered into the buildings to search for rally goers. (the full report is here).

In relation to the incident at Tung Shin, faced with irrefutable audio-visual as well as oral evidence, the least the government could do is to admit that it happened. Then it should apologise. Even YB Khairy Jamaluddin this morning had the clarity of mind to say that on twitter.

The Prime Minister had left for the UK. The mainstream media went ape-like in blaming Anwar and mocking his injury. This obsession with Anwar Ibrahim is actually quite irritating. let me tell you all something. Most rally goers did not give a hoot about Anwar that day. That day was not about Anwar. It was about their middle finger which they had wanted to point to some others.

The international press – which of course, in the government’s book, are always bias and out to pursue their secret agenda against our country – have not been kind to the government. Even the Jakarta Post editorial (Malaysia is rich but not free) was not flattering. Yesterday, Bloomberg’s William Pesek was scathing in his opinion. Pesek is an influential writer and Bloomberg is a reference point for many foreign investors. (his article is here). The UN thinks the government had gone way over the top. The US is concerned.

So, what’s the plan here? What is the plan to bring back credibility to our reform plan? Where is the plan to persuade the foreign fund managers and investors that Malaysia is indeed a moderate multi-cultural society with immaculate tolerance for dissent?

Someone died during the rally. Have we heard a word of sympathy or condolence from the government’s side? I have not. All we had was the usual defensive “don’t blame me” statements.

Are we human? Or have we stopped being human?

Since when?

Goodbye Ungku…a giant among men

2011-07-13T09:42:00.001+08:00

Funeral Blues

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now; put out every one,
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

-- W H Auden

Seriously, do these look like 6000 people to you?

2011-07-12T10:55:00.001+08:00

Source: Awesome collection of Bersih pictures here.

The Best of Bersih

2011-07-11T14:43:00.001+08:00

In so far as Bersih is concerned, I am done lecturing on the concept of fundamental liberties and the rights of the people. I am done writing about the true concept of social contract and the duties of the State. Because, really, knock, knock, knock, and there’s nobody home.

So today I am going to do what I have not done in the past, namely, I would post links to the websites which, I think, depict the best of Bersih. In fact, they depict the best of Malaysia, really (it proves that one does not have to engage a super high powered Jewish company and pay them millions to sell a concept such as 1Malaysia. Bersih proves that when there is a unity of purpose, the people will unite).

Let me begin with part of the lyrics of Guns & Roses’ song, "Civil War":

"What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!…

Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more”

We have read so many accounts of the Bersih rally. The best among which, to me, are:

i) My Bersih 2.0 Experience, by Marina Mahathir (guess what, she was there. Eat your heart our Tun DrM!);

ii) Someone Did Win on July 9th, by one Charis Ding (she had ice cream with the FRUs!); and,

iii) BERSIH 2.0 - Was it worth it?, a note on Facebook by my facebook friend, one Abdul Haleem (telling us, among others, about the true kindness of Malaysians, super cool policemen and FRUs who made fun of his disability).

The most endearing story is of course about Auntie Anne, the Lady of Liberty, a 65 year old lady who took a bus alone, and walked all the way from the General Hospital to the rally centre. She took the prize for the best quote as well:

“Why do we have to feel so scared (and threatened) in our own home land.. and by own countrymen?”

The most enduring pictures of the Bersih rally, which would still adorn the Malaysian museum of liberty 100 years from now are:

The other one is this:

Pak Samad Said, our National Laureate, has been tireless in his efforts for Bersih. On the 9th, this 76 year old walked and walked and walked, until he was stopped by the police near the Istana, where he had wanted to deliver the Bersih memorandum to His majesty the King. According to Pak Samad, His Royal Highness had said “can” when asked whether Bersih could deliver the memorandum on the 9th. Alas, it was not to be.

Pak Samad is however, Malaysia’s new hero.

One of the best video of the rally, to me, is this one:

The saddest incident which took place during the rally was of course the death of Allahyarham Burhanudin Ahmad, who succumbed after the police fired tear gas at the crowd he was in. I will not fault neither Bersih nor the police for his death. However his brother alleged that the police actually refused to take him to the hospital while he was lying breathless on the ground. A van only came about one and a half hours later, by which time it was too late. If that was true, then it is tragic that the police had acted in such an inhumane way. I hope that’s not true.

Al-Fatihah to Allahyarham. May God bless his soul. But he died doing what he believed in. He died fulfilled.

Unfortunately, until the time of writing, there has been no utterance of condolence at all from any of our leaders in the government nor the people in the authorities, especially our police. All that was said is “do not blame the police for his death” and “the police was not responsible for his death” as well as “Bersih caused his death”.

Is it too difficult for us to put aside political differences for a while and be a normal human being? Can’t we in this our of sadness for his family at least pay our respect to him and express our condolence to his family for their loss?

The strangest things about the Bersih rally are:

i) Ibrahim Ali, the war general without any war to go to, was nowhere to be seen. There was a report saying about 20 Perkasa members were seen having coffee at Taman Titiwangsa. The Bersih rally proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Perkasa is not what it is made out to be. It has no supporters. It has no specific agenda other than to vomit racist rhetoric and cause havoc for nothing.

ii)Despite being officially declared by the Right Honourable Prime Minister that the silat guys are the 3rd line of defence, no silat fellow was seen strutting his or her stuff during the rally. Someone with a wicked sense of humour twitted that the silat guys just arrived at Pasar Seni at 8pm after the rally. Lol!

iii)No communist, foreign provocateur or Christian with subversive intentions were arrested by the police. There was also no call to overthrow the government either by locals nor foreigners. And yes, the USA had not landed in the middle of Dataran Merdeka together with NATO in order to help the Malaysians to overthrow the government. Minister Rais is wrong, yet again (err…when has he ever been right? Hahah…)

iv) Who was it who said that traders and stall owners would lose a lot of money if the rally went on? Traders and stall owners were making roaring business.

Among the most ridiculous things which were said about and after the rally are:

i) most participants were Malays and these Malays were being used by DAP. Some newspaper said the Malays were being used by PAS. Make up your mind guys. Ibrahim Ali said the rally goers were paid. I have only one question to these guys. What are you smoking? Give me a quarter please.

ii) Ambiga had committed treason and her citizenship ought to be revoked. Ibrahim Ali said that. Need I say more?

iii) The Prime Minister said UMNO could muster 6000 people on short notice. Bersih could only gather 6000 people in 3 months. UMNO could flood KL with millions if it wanted to. Ho ho…try give a permit to Bersih Mr Prime Minister and let’s see how many will turn up. By the way, Patriot could only bring 500 people.

The real victor is of course the people of Malaysia. Despite our well known rudeness on the road (well, let’s just wait till the balik kampung event starts next month), Malaysians of all races, faiths and walk of life walked in unison, side by side for one purpose. They chatted. They laughed together. They smiled at each other. They helped each other. They were civil even towards the police and FRUs who admittedly were just doing their job (but with considerable enthusiasm lah).

Speaking of being civil, whoever said that there would be a riot and destruction of property was proven, yet again, wrong. Not a single glass window broke. No car was smashed. No tong sampah was even overturned.

The one who were acting like hooligans were those people who were supposed to protect the civilians. Ambiga and gang were in the Brickfield underpass when they were stopped by a bunch of FRUs. Tian Chua went to them to negotiate. They responded by beating their shields. Tear gas were shot towards them. They retreated. Another bunch of FRUs came from behind and fired tear gas. They were trapped. Anwar and his bodyguard were injured (the bodyguard, badly). Khalid Samad was hit with a canister requiring 6 stitches.

What do you call that? No warning to disperse. No provocation by the group. And yet they were trapped between two groups of FRUs and fired with tear gas in an underpass. What do you call that? Sorry, in my book, that is criminal assault and battery. That is an attempt to injure. That is a crime.

Lastly, but surely not the least, the We-Have-Erection-Once-Every-5-Year award goes to…jeng jeng jeng…the IGP for saying that only 6000 people joined the rally.

I suggest the IGP changes his glasses and call a new tender for calculators soon.

Bersih and the Fall of Reason

2011-07-06T14:37:00.001+08:00

“I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death.” : Thomas Paine

The events unfolding before our eyes in the past few weeks say a lot about us as a collection of individuals; as a society and as a people. What is clear however is the sad fact that when we are faced with adversity, we tend to lose our head and retreat into the same old dark and cold cave of emotions, of irrationality and of convenient rhetoric.

Above all, we abandon the very faculty which differentiates us from all other primates, namely, our ability to reason. That is the saddest reflection of us, as a nation.

With all due respect, the government could have handled the Bersih’s requests and demands in better ways than imaginable. As a people living in 2011, we expect better. We expect the government to respond and not react. And react rashly and even stupidly at that.

When the momentum of Bersih’s call for a rally gain traction and weight, the usual suspects jumped into action. Apparently, Dato’ Ambiga, the Bersih chairman, was an enemy of Islam. The obligatory demonstration (which was granted a police permit in two days after an application was made for one) coupled with the inevitable ultra-nationalistic speeches climaxing into the predictable burning of Ambiga’s pictures took place.

It is ironic that Ibrahim Ali named his movement “Gerak Aman” (“Peace Movement”, in English) while at the same time making a not-so-veiled, but vile, threat that the “Chinese should really stock up food in their house”. He then appointed himself the “war general”. And so, a Peace Movement had a war general. Certainly a first for Malaysia.

The police force was not to be left behind. Its intelligent unit jumped into action and within minutes it found evidence that the Communist had infiltrated Bersih and was planning to overthrow the government through Bersih. A number of people from Parti Sosialis Malaysia were promptly arrested and red t-shirts were seized.

Not enough with that, it was also found out that Bersih was being funded by some Christian groups. That seemed to gel with the earlier assertion that Ambiga was anti-Islam.

And so Bersih has managed to achieve what no other organisation in the whole world had managed to even dream, ie, the unison of Christianity with Communism in post World War time. How’s that for international notoriety?

If we had thought that Malaysia and her authorities have gone ape, we were in for a big surprise in later days.

The members of some silat organisations that announced that they would “wage war” against Bersih. 50000 of its members were ready to kill off any challenge by Bersih or by the rally participants. As to what the challenge was, nobody gave any clue. Later the silat organisation seemed to grow in numbers and this time it declared it was ready to “defend the country from Bersih’s action”.

Then the usual intellectual and some persatuan peniaga runcit whatever joined in the fray. The planned rally would create traffic congestion and would cause traders to lose a lot of money. Why don’t they do it in Putrajaya? Pity the taxi drivers.

Of course it was lost too them that the bounden duty of the police is to ensure safety and order during the exercise by the people of their Constitutional right. Why don’t the police meet up with Bersih and hatch out a security plan rather than act to prevent the people from doing so?

There was, and still is, a complete lack of understanding as to the rights of the people and the function of the State when such rights are about to be exercised. Thinking that it is the year 2011 and that Malaysia has gained independence for about 54 years, it is distressful to note such completely belligerent attitude against the people by the government.

Worse was to come, however.

Ambiga and the Bersih committee were hauled to the police station. The fact that these people voluntarily went to the police station speaks volume of their non-confrontational approach towards the whole thing. They had not committed any crime. Nor were they planning any crime. But went to the police station they did.

The thing which struck me as the most uncouth move of all was the dragging of Pak Samad Said, our national laureate, to the police station for a 90 minute “interview” over a poem which he allegedly read at a Bersih launch.

From then on, Bersih, to me, had travelled into a different dimension. It was not about electoral reform anymore. It had become a movement about the people moving against some sort of tyranny.

Soon followed the outlawing of yellow t-shirts depicting the Bersih word. The IGP joined in to say that even shoes, umbrellas and buses depicting the word Bersih are seditious and will be seized. The Home Minister capped the whole insanity with the declaration that Bersih is illegal.

Arrest and more arrests took place. Malaysia was surely descending into the pits of absolutism.

The Home Minister never failed to baffle many. That trend continued when he said that books on communism and communist leaders may be given the green light for sale or publication on the condition that they do not promote Bersih. And so Bersih has now become Malaysia’s post-emergency (oh, sorry, what post-emergency, we are still under states of emergency!), post-war-confrontation-13th May biggest bogey man. And to think that Bersih is headed by a recipient of the United State’s women courage award!

The most baffling statements in all these Bersih related rhetoric came from none other than the Honourable Prime Minister.

While addressing a crowd of about 20000 people in Kelantan, the Prime Minister declared Ambiga as an enemy of Islam. The basis for that declaration was that Ambiga had acted in the Lina Joy’s case, a case involving a Muslim woman who had converted to Christianity and was fighting to get her religion changed on her identity card by the national registration department.

Welcome to 1Malaysia. In just one single sentence Mr Prime Minister, I am afraid to say, that the concept of 1Malaysia, which is so enthusiastically promoted by your administration, will remain a concept for quite a while.

In the first place, Ambiga wasn’t even in the Lina Joy’s case! Even if she was, that declaration is a display of a complete misunderstanding or non-understanding of the role and functions of lawyers who appear for their clients in the Courts.

Using the Prime Minister’s arguments, would we call all the Syariah lawyers who defend people who are accused for khalwat or not fasting in the Syariah Courts anti-Islam or even the enemies of Islam?

What do we call lawyers who defend people who are accused of rape in our Courts? Pro-rape? Lawyers who defend people accused of murder are anti-life? How about the Attorney General who appear in Court to argue that certain people should be detained without trial? Do we call him anti-liberty?

The Honourable Prime Minister gave a speech on moderation in Oxford University on 17th May 2011. Among others, this was what he said:

“Our choice is clear. Come together in action for a future of justice, freedom, hope, compassion and goodwill for our children or it will be replaced by a future of injustice, tyranny, hopelessness, cruelty and hate.

We must address the underlying causes of global violence. Merely going after specific individuals, dismantling their organisations, disrupting their finances and discrediting their ideologies is far from enough. We must be able to differentiate between the symptoms and the root causes. Only then, can we achieve a lasting solution.”

Why didn’t the government look at the root cause of the grievances in Bersih’s case? Why must the Prime Minister merely choose to go against his very own words by “going after specific individuals, dismantling their organisations and discrediting their ideologies”?

Why has there been no attempt at all to differentiate between the symptoms and the root causes?

And where is the “action for a future of justice, freedom, hope, compassion and goodwill for our children or it will be replaced by a future of injustice, tyranny, hopelessness, cruelty and hate?”

His Royal Highness the King had granted an audience to Ambiga and His Majesty had asked that Bersih do meet with the government to work out a compromise as of yesterday. That put paid to all the vile accusations and declaration of illegality by the government against Bersih.

The question is why haven’t the government paid some respect to the King’s exhortation? Why hasn’t the Bersih activist been released, some even from detention without trial under the Emergency laws? Why are people wearing the Bersih yellow t-shirts still being arrested (today alone, there are several arrests).

Why did the police surround a talk organised by the lawyers last night in Kota Damansara just to educate the public on their rights upon arrests?

Why did the police mount countless roadblocks today which caused traffic congestions resulting in much difficulties to the public? The police and government kept on saying that street rallies cause traffic congestion and untold misery. What about the roadblocks?

The answer given is that the road blocks were aimed to prevent unwanted elements in the capital city.

I just have one tiny question. If Bersih’s aim is to overthrow the government, then they must be quite sophisticated. After all they are aided by Christians who are working hand in hand with the communist.

Now, how does several policemen carrying guns, standing on the road, manning roadblocks and waving the traffic to move along help to trace all these sophisticated elements?

Frankly I think the police would do much and way better if all those policemen were asked to capture the acid splasher who is still on the loose till this very moment. Or why don’t they go and investigate some sex videos?

The truth is the government has surely lost the proverbial plot over the Bersih issue. This is, I am afraid to say - and I am saying this with the greatest of respect - a government which surely is not at ease even with itself, let alone the people it thinks it is governing!

The Prime Minister, in his aforesaid Oxford speech quoted Nelson Mandela, who said:

“Let there be justice for all. Let there be peace for all. Let there be work, bread, water and salt for all. Let each know that for each body, the mind and the soul have been freed to fulfil themselves.”

Yes. The mind and the soul. The government may seize all yellow t-shirts, outlaw Bersih, arrest the body of its supporters, but their mind and soul remain free. The mind cannot be arrested.

To cap it up, the Prime Minister said:

“But while one man standing in the road is a nuisance, a mere distraction, 10 men standing together are far harder to ignore. And if those 10 become 100, a thousand, a million, a billion even, they become a force so big, so strong and so united in their common cause that those who espouse hatred will face a very simple choice.”

I rest my case.

Thursday jottings

2011-06-30T10:11:00.001+08:00

While all of us, citizens and the police alike, are going completely bonkers about the planned rally by BERSIH on 9th July, allow me to touch on the subject a bit today.

The government has surely gone drunken-ape about this planned rally. It has, among others, declared that yellow t-shirts with the word BERSIH printed on them are illegal. The IGP, feeling left out, later chipped in to warn that buses, shoes and umbrellas with markings which support the rally – which according to him is an illegal act – is seditious. See here and here for full reports respectively.

And so people wearing t-shirts are arrested. The word BERSIH has become a dirty one. Activists have also been arrested.

The police on the other hand has been busy churning out ridiculous amount of laughing gas every time it attempted to justify the clampdown on the planned rally. Firstly, they claimed it was a communist plot to overthrow the government. Then it was the fact that BERSIH was being funded by Christian groups who are of course – what else? – anti-Islam. And today we have a statement saying there are foreign elements which are threatening to throw the country into chaos during the rally.

God knows what’s the next thing they will come up with. Lord Voldermot and Darth Vader appearing as Ambiga and Hadi Awang?

Meanwhile, our National Laureate, A Samad Said, was called for questioning by the police just for reading 2 paragraphs of his prepared speech. See my post The Tipping Point on this.

Yesterday we had the Persatuan Silat whatever declaring to wage war against the BERSIH rally goers. Before that we have Ibrahim Ali telling the Chinese to stock up food. While Pak Samad was promptly hauled up to the police station for a 90 minute tete-a-tete for reading some very nice prose calling for social justice, I wonder why statements which wage war and provoking the Chinese are not investigated with the same vigour or at all by the police.

It is this kind of double standard which nauseates me and many others, I must say.

The truth is the police and the Home Ministry could just work with the organisers of the rally to ensure a peaceful and orderly rally. After all, the police’s fundamental duty is to protect the society and to ensure peace. It’s duty is not to prevent citizens from exercising their rights under the Constitution.

I remember after the now infamous cow head protest in Shah Alam, the police explained why their officers just stood guard and did not prevent the rally that Friday. I remember the police saying that they did not stop the rally because they feared it might cause more anger. And so they just stood like statues looking at the rally goers carrying a bloodied cow head while chanting racially provocative statements.

What is the difference between that and the planned BERSIH rally? Why can;t the police do the same. Stand guard. Ensure public safety.

I also remember what the Home Minister said after that protest. Here it is.

Yes. The Home Minister sat with the protesters after the protest. He totally understood their grievance. “They just wanted their voices to be heard”, says him.

Well, I suppose BERSIH and those who are planning to join the rally also have voices to be heard and they quite obviously want their voices to be heard. I am sure the Home Minister can afford the same courtesy which he accorded the cow head protesters to BERSIH and those who plan to join the rally, no?

In this respect, I am pleased to note that Ambiga, the Chairperson of BERSIH has agreed to see the IGP to try and find a win-win solution to this impasse. I do hope some kind of agreement could be achieved from this meeting. I am happy to note that the IGP is willing to talk to Ambiga as well.

On a totally unrelated matter, I remember the Prime Minister asking all of us to tighten our belt. I also remember Minister Idris Jala warning us that Malaysia might go bankrupt if subsidies are not reviewed and cut soon.

Recently of course we saw the cutting of subsidies for RON97 fuel. Then sugar price went up. And the most recent is the hiking up of electricity rate. Generally, things are just more expensive than before. And we are talking about daily household stuffs here, not handbags, sun glasses or mobile phones.

As such, I am aghast to learn how much our country pays for rentals, electricity charges and water charges for the PM and DPM’s official residences.

Minister Nazri, in a written answer to a question in the Parliament, revealed that a staggering RM160,000 is paid for electricity and RM33,000 for water every month for these two official residences.

In all, the country pays RM32,972,115.55 for rentals, RM3,581,744.78 for renovation works, RM10,267,868.15 for electricity and RM1,967,386.55 for water. See the full report here.

Get that. 10 million bucks for electricity in a year. And 1.9 million bucks for water!

How many Play Stations are there in these two residences? How many swimming pools and water slides are there?

By contrast, Rumah Nursalam, a welfare centre which takes care of about 700 registered children – most are street children around the Chow Kit area – spend about RM50000.00 per month on everything, including food, drinks, electricity, water, staff salaries, programmes and transportation. Their water bill is just RM300 per center per year!

Take just 1% from the 10 million electricity bill and 2 million water bill and give to Rumah Nursalam – which is 120000 – and Rumah Nursalam will be able to survive for TWO years without other donation.

With respect, I find the expenses for the two official residences appalling, to say the least.

The Unwanted

2011-06-29T15:35:00.001+08:00

There are some new articles inserted into our Federal Constitution taking effect today. They are:-

Article 8(A): All shirts and t-shirts are be equal before the law and entitled to be worn by anybody at any time. There shall be no discrimination against any shirt or t-shirt on the ground only of their colours, pattern, style, material or fashion unless and until proclaimed otherwise by the Home Minister.

Article 5A: No person shall be deprived of his rights to wear anything, especially shirts or t-shirts, in whatever colours, style, material, pattern or fashion unless such shirts or t-shirts are prohibited from being worn by the Home Minister.

Meanwhile, just now, these two guys were found, walking aimlessly and forlornly. Poor guys.

The Tipping Point

2011-06-29T10:26:00.001+08:00

Apparently, Pak Samad Said, our Sasterawan Negara/National Laureate, read the last two paragraphs of the following speech on 19th June 2011 at the launch of Bersih.

I copied the following speech of his from his blog.

“Murbawan Malaysia tidak senang dengan apa yang sedang berlaku di negara ini. Kita menghantar pesanan yang sangat waras. Demokrasi perlu murni dan terus dimurnikan.

Kenapa kita tidak boleh memperbaik situasi? Kenapa kita harus membiarkan demokrasi diperkuda oleh segelintir kuasawan yang tampaknya bermaharajalela?
Telah lama kita tidak senang dengan aliran demokrasi yang diperkuda ini. Telah lama kita inginkan demokrasi yang bersih, bergerak atas landas yang murni.

Kita sedar bahawa jalan ini tidaklah mudah. Maka itu, kita menjadi lebih berazam. Kita maklum bahawa gergasi media arus perdana kini sedang ikut garang menghempit kita dalam arus peristiwa yang semakin durjana. Kita sedang berlawan dengan keangkuhan yang pejal. Oleh media arus perdana ini, kita sewenangnya digambarkan sebagai kumpulan “siasah” yang sangat bercita-cita buruk. Lebih buruk, kita digambarkan sebagai kelompok yang sengaja ingin menggelorakan masyarakat seburuk hajat.

Kita tidak begitu. Kita ingin memperbaiki jentera demokrasi agar lebih berhati nurani.
Kita tidak menginginkan demokrasi yang kasar dan sombong; kita merindukan demokrasi yang tulus dan betul.

Inilah gerakan kita yang, sayangnya, terpaksa bermula di tengah keangkuhan kerajaan yang merasa segala-galanya sudah betul, malah sudah syurgawi, di tanah air ini. Kita sebenarnya masih dalam derita yang terus dicipta oleh tangan kasar berhati angkuh yang sangat bercita-cita.

Kita merindukan suara kuasa yang waras dan insani; suara pembimbing yang ikhlas dan mengerti. Kita tidak memerlukan suara angkuh dalam era yang sudah terlalu lama sombong ini. Kita mengharapkan tangan kuasa yang berhemah, sedia memimpin dan berdamai, turut bantu mencipta iklim demokrasi yang harum.

Memanglah kita mengkhayalkan dunia indah itu, walaupun kenyataan yang terserlah dan mengembang kini sedang menunjukkan di atas kepala kita sentiasa sedia terapung awan kelam yang menjanjikan tofan.

Jikalau berlaku, kita bukanlah kelompok manusia yang gamam berlari; kita, sebaliknya, adalah manusia yang cekal berdiri. Kita ingin memupuk demokrasi yang lebih berhati nurani.

Dua ratus tahun dulu seorang tokoh kecil Sam Adams, dengan kelompoknya yang kecil juga, telah mencurahkan teh ke dalam laut di pelabuhan Boston, Amerika. Kata Sam Adams: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set bushfires in people’s minds.”

Kita nyalakan unggun api itu pada malam ini!”

(the original site is here).

Frankly, I think, the Home Minister, has lost the plot. Pure and simple.

To summon Ambiga and gang to the police station is one thing. At least, the Home Minister could say that he and the police were just doing their job to protect the state. Although I do not agree with that, I could live with it, to be fair to him.

But to drag a frail old man, our National Laureate - whose spirit and commitment for a better society is obviously not as frail as his physical body is – to the police station for 90 minutes just for reading out the last two paragraphs of the speech above is plain madness.

It is a sign of the Home Minister losing his marbles; not thinking rationally and acting recklessly. It is overkill and over-reaction to a situation which DOES NOT AT ALL WARRANT SUCH ACTION BY THE POLICE!

The planned BERSIH rally is about electoral reform. Now, according to some people, it is about the communist wanting to take over Malaysia by overthrowing the government; about Christians organisations funding BERSIH; about anti-Islam and anti-King forces and whatever else within their infantile fertile imaginations.

To me, the dragging of Pak Samad to the police station is the tipping point. Now it is about anger; about some young elitist turk being discourteous to an old man; about Malay culture; about respect; about uncouthness (is there such a word?).

Dear Brother Anas,

2011-06-27T12:48:00.001+08:00

I am moved to comment on your "Open letter to Lim Guan Eng."

First of all, I have no doubt of your centrist stance. Having known you for close to 27 years, I think I could state, with some level of authority, that your centrist stance is one which you have embraced all this while. Now you are just utilising that stance for what you think is for the good of the society. I respect that.

As unity is a subject which is really close to your heart, allow me to put my thought to that subject, especially in relation to what you had written in your said open letter.

Unity is a concept, an abstract, if not an intangible one at that. Being an abstract, it cannot be physically measured. It is a state of mind. It exists within parameters of perception. It is not like health or financial success, where someone could declare that our nation is full of healthy people, or that it is full of wealthy people.

By contrast, unity is like the concept of safety. One can declare that statistical data shows that crime rates have fallen by, say, 20%. But one cannot, armed with that statistical data, conclude that the country is safe.

In similar fashion, with respect, one cannot just create a slogan and a nice little symbol and paste the slogan and symbol on banners and shirts as well as bombard the media with them and declare that unity has magically, if not miraculously, delivered itself to this country and her people. It does not work that way when it comes to unity.

When we speak of unity, or rather the concept of unity, we have to understand what the concept entails; what it really means and what it is all about. And when we want to achieve unity, we have to have a definite and tangible plan to make it a reality.

An intangible and abstract concept such as unity cannot be achieved or brought to reality with intangible and abstract moves, such as the creation of a slogan or symbol.

To me, unity, in so far as a nation – more particularly, Malaysia - is concerned, consists of two kinds. They are:

situational unity, and,
transcendental unity.

Situational unity is pockets of one-ness shown or practised by the people as individuals or as members of a group which they belong to. It arises out of cultural practice or individual beliefs. It might even arise out of certain circumstances and even out of purely selfish reasons and not precipitated by any altruism at all.

Examples of these situational unity are seen daily in our lives. People of various races and faiths sit together at a stall sipping their teh tarik while talking about how our Magistrate Courts had turned into a sex video cinema, for example.

When the Malaysian football team won the Suzuki Cup not so long ago, Malaysians of all races went berserk with a little burst of spontaneous patriotism and nationalism everywhere; at teh tarik stalls; at homes; in cyberspace over Twitter or Facebook etc. A long time ago, when Malaysia beat Saudi Arabia at Stadium Merdeka, I spontaneously stood up together with 45ooo other Malaysians to sing Negara Ku, without being prompted by anybody or anything.

In my office, I, a Malay partner, am in unison with my partners of other races, for a purely self-altruitic purpose, namely, to make a living.

Those are what I call situational unity.

Although at macro level, these pockets of situational unity may seem insignificant or even irrelevant, to me, they are reflective of a positive mind set. They show that there are certain situations or set of situations where people of various races and faiths are driven to disregard and put aside their cultural and genetic differences and spontaneously unite to become one.

That is proof that while unity, being an abstract concept, cannot be directly engineered, situations or circumstances conducive or leading to it may be created to foster unity.

Meanwhile, transcendental unity, in terms of a nation and nation building, would mean the people, regardless of their race, faith and cultural background or even genetic make-up, coming together and moving in unison towards the greater and common good of this nation while at the same time, putting aside self-altruism and interests.

I call this concept of unity transcendental unity because it is an ideal and not real. A complete transcendental unity, I would dare say, can never be achieved because it is against human nature.

Human beings are by nature selfish. Francis Fukuyama, in his book, “The Origins of Political Order”, pointed out that human beings, for example, have the propensity for favouring their family and friends, something which Fukuyama calls “patrimonialism”. If I may, I would stretch Fukuyama’s patrimonialism even beyond family and friends. I think it is also human nature to prefer one’s tribe, race or community.

Notwithstanding the fact that an absolute state of transcendental unity can never be achieved, a civilised society led by a government which is committed to achieving a common good for the nation must, at great cost and effort, work to achieve a state of transcendental unity or as close as possible to that state.

It is of course easy to disunite the people, especially when the people consist of various races and faiths and coming from diverse cultural background, than to even maintain a facade of unity.

Unity exists even as a facade. History would of course show that facades of unity were often created by dictators, authoritarians and totalitarians. These facades of unity would soon disintegrate as the dictators, authoritarians and totalitarians fell.

As soon as Saddam Hussein was defeated for example, the almost serene and tranquil racial, religious and cultural “melting pot” of Iraq became a boiling porridge of tribal and sectarians divisiveness. Just as the Berlin wall fell, glasnost and perestroika liberated the Russians from years of communism, the country broke into pieces and some former colonists, like Yugoslavia, descended into hellish war fuelled by centuries of racial and religious wounds.

The danger with creating a facade of unity, instead of working towards the establishment of a transcendental unity, is that we might be lulled into sleep with a dream-like belief that our people are united for the better good of this country while on the ground, racial bigotry and hatred are allowed to fester and infest the very fabric of our society, hidden behind this facade of unity which we created for whatever purpose which only we know. Deep underneath this veil or facade of unity, there is a virulent form of disease working insidiously. God helps us if or when this viral infection becomes too late to treat.

As I had stated earlier, there are innumerable pockets of situational unity displayed by us day in and day out in Malaysia. This proves that if left behind on their own and without interference by politicians and self-altruistic rebel- rousers, we, Malaysians, regardless of racial, religious or cultural background, are able to switch on our natural love for a peaceful co-existence. We are able to put aside our differences and become one if a situation conducive for such unity is present.

Towards achieving a state of transcendental unity, it is therefore the duty of a responsible government to create these conduciveness. This conduciveness will not be present when there are newspapers like Utusan Malaysia being allowed, by the continued patronisation of the biggest political party in the ruling government, to spew racial hatred and bigotry almost on a daily basis.

This conduciveness will also not be in existence, regardless of how loud we shout 1Malaysia and 1this-and-that if at the same time ultra-right-winged organisations such as Perkasa be given a free hand – and mouth and leg – to threaten blood-shed and create racial fear by issuing warnings and mongering fear with impunity as if these people are above the law.

This conduciveness will not exist when a rational discourse is not granted to minority groups who are trying to voice out minority’s concerns, insecurity as well as well as fight for the recognition, at least, of their rights.

At this juncture Anas, your call for the acknowledgement by DAP that this land had always belonged to the Malays; that the Malays have been kind enough to let the non-Malays to be here and that DAP should be grateful for this kindness come into play.

Although various historical as well as anthropological studies could very well be used to at least dispute your assertion that this land had always belonged to the Malays, I do not wish to go into such dispute in this post.

For the sake of argument, let’s just assume for a while that you are correct, that this land, ie, this land which was otherwise known as Tanah Melayu, had belonged to the Malays.

With respect Anas, you had failed to recognise, or give any consideration at all, that such acknowledgement had been given by the non-Malays during the inception of this country as an independent state in 1957.

I say so based on the argument which has always been used by the likes of Dr Mahathir and his ilk. Not based on any arguments made up by myself, the so called Melayu Liberal who has given a bad twist to the word “liberal” and “Melayu”.

Dr Mahathir and his band of nationalistic scholars argue that in 1957, there was a “social contract.” This social contract, in effect, consists of the Malays being kind enough to “grant” citizenship to the Chinese and Indians. Because of that kindness, and to show gratitude towards the Malays, the Chinese and Indians agreed to grant “special rights” to the Malays. These “special rights” are enshrined in article 153 of our Federal Constitution.

I have written so many articles on this subject. I will not argue with Dr Mahathir anymore on this.

Now, let’s just assume that what Dr Mahathir said about the compromise to be a correct and true historical fact.

If the Chinese and Indians who were given the right to citizenship by the kind and gracious Malays had in turned gladly conceded that the Malays have special rights under our Constitution, that would of course mean that the Chinese and Indians had in fact acknowledged that Tanah Melayu had belonged to the Malays before 1957.

The acknowledgement which you sought dear Anas, had been given in 1957 by the Chinese and Indian community. This acknowledgement, based on Dr Mahathir’s own historical postulation, took the form of the concession of special rights being given to the Malays in article 153 of our Federal Constitution.

If that is so, why is there a need for the non-Malays, especially DAP, to make such acknowledgement again, in 2011?

While I agree that acknowledging the past is sometimes good for us – just so we do not forget our roots – a demand for such acknowledgement times and again would be regressive in terms of achieving transcendental unity in my humble opinion.

What we need is an acknowledgement by all Malaysians and by all political parties, that all of us have our respective rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. The government then must assure that all these rights will be respected and they will not be trampled willy-nilly as of we are some ant colonies being ruled by a bunch of hungry ant-eaters!

As it is, we can’t even wear a yellow t-shirt nowadays! What conduciveness towards unity are we talking about?

In my humble opinion, it would do nicely for a state of transcendental unity of the government could start creating a situation conducive to unity instead of patronising pseudo-nationalist individuals and organisations. If there is any acknowledgement which is necessary for unity, I think the acknowledgement should come from the State and not from the people. That is because the people’s ability to unite is amply shown by the countless of situational unity day in day out by the people.

Before I end Anas, allow me to tell the story of the Melanesian societies of the Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.*

The societies existing in these two newly independent “Westminster democracies” are based on tribal lineage and kinsman. To say that they are fractious would be a gross understatement. Papua New Guinea has more than 900 languages, which is nearly one-sixth of the number of languages in the whole world! The Solomon Islands are not far behind. It has a population of about 500000 people and yet it has about 70 different languages.

Each tribe is headed by what they call, a Big Man (certain tribe is headed by a Big Woman, of course). In each society, the position of Big Man or Big Woman is earned and not passed by generations. A Big Man must therefore prove himself as a leader and is constantly aware of a challenge being mounted by a challenger.

The ability of a Big Man or Big Woman is judged in accordance with his or her ability to distribute pigs, shell money and other resources to the members of his tribes.

As and when a Westminster democracy was introduced, the concept of Parliamentary representative was transposed on these societies. The result was of course, chaotic, to say the least. The various tribe do not vote based on political ideologies or programmes for the common good of the country. They vote for their Big Man or Big Woman.

In turn, when these Big Men or Women are elected, they do not work for the common good of the country or for the people as a nation or state. They are more concerned with how many pigs they could get and deliver to their tribe. If not, they would lose their respective position as the Big Man or Big Woman.

That fractious approach towards nation building makes a mockery of the Westminster democracy that these two states practise. Unity is unknown to these two as the people are only move in accordance with their self-altruistic motivations.

We might laugh when we read about this. But doesn’t it remind us of a modern and semi-developed place we know?

Unity starts with a resolution. And that resolution is a resolution to move in unison for the greater good of the nation.

Have a good day Anas.

*data are from Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order, Profile Books, 2011

Malaysia is under 4 states of emergency, mind you!

2011-06-23T11:12:00.001+08:00

According to a MalaysiaKini report, Dato’ Ambiga, the chairperson of BERSIH, YB Khairy Jamaluddin, the UMNO Youth Chief and Dato’ Ibrahim Ali, the Perkasa war general, have all been summoned to Bukit Aman by the police. So the Home Minister said.

On the same day, I read a Malaysian Insider report that three youths are suing the police for placing them under detention without trial under the Emergency Ordinance 1969 for allegedly stealing motorcycles.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Malaysia, and please do not unfasten your seatbelts.

For the uninitiated, allow me to put on record that Malaysia (including when we were Tanah Melayu) has seen 5 state of emergencies altogether. The 1st time was in 1948 when the communist insurgency resulted in 11000 people being killed.

The 2nd time was in 1964 during the Indonesian confrontation.

The 3rd time was in 1966. This was limited to Sarawak following the dismissal of the Ketua Menteri.

The 4th time was in 1969 following the 13th May incident.

Lastly, it was in 1977, which was limited to the state of Kelantan to deal with the political crisis there.

The last 4 emergencies have not been lifted till today.

What is so frightening about state of emergencies, you may ask.

This is the most frightening. Article 150, Clause 6 of the Federal Constitution allows the Parliament to pass any law and His Majesty the King to promulgate any ordinance during state of emergencies and those laws and ordinances will be valid even if they are repugnant or inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

In other words, during an emergency, any kind of law would be valid. Which means, the Federal Constitution may be ignored, side-stepped or just plain torn, shredded and burned. Which finally mean, you and I, citizen of Malaysia, do not have any kind of recognisable right during an emergency.

Various emergency regulations have been promulgated and used since 1969. These regulations give wide and really draconian powers to the police and government. The followings are just some examples.

Firstly, a person may be detained without trial and banished to a certain area without trial.

Secondly, In the EMERGENCY (ESSENTIAL POWERS) ORDINANCE, 1969(Ordinance 1 and Ordinance 2) ESSENTIAL (DISPOSAL OF DEAD BODIES AND DISPENSATION OF INQUESTS AND DEATH INQUIRIES) REGULATIONS, 1969 for example, regulation 3 ( b ) provides as follows:

“where a Magistrate or a Coroner responsible for holding a death inquiry or inquest on the body of any person is satisfied that such person has been killed as a result of operations for the purpose of suppressing disturbances by the Police or the Malaysian Armed Forces or as a result of injuries caused by
disturbances, the Magistrate or the Coroner, as the case may be, may dispense with the holding of a death inquiry or inquest on the body of such person.”

That would of course mean no police killing could come under scrutiny during an emergency.

Thirdly, the Home Minister can ban any kind of printing material which he deems it as prejudicial to public order. He can even open all postal packages, read all telegrams, articles and printed matters and detain those material under the ESSENTIAL (NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS) REGULATIONS, 1969.

Fourthly (hold on really tight to your seats for this one), under the ESSENTIAL (PROHIBITION OF ACTIVITIES RELATING TO ELECTIONS)
REGULATIONS, 1969, elections may be suspended, during which suspension, regulation 2 provides:

“Notwithstanding any written law to the contrary. for so long as the elections are suspended all activities relating to elections are hereby prohibited.”

Fifthly, there is such a thing called the ESCAR, namely, the Emergency and Security Cases Regulations which, among others:

permits the Attorney General to choose whichever Court he likes to try a security case. The Court may sit in any place or state regardless of where the alleged offence took place.
if the Court is satisfied that a witness is afraid to testify, the witness can testify in a manner that he or she cannot be seen or heard by the Counsel of the accused! Now, tell me, how the hell is the accused going to defend himself against such witness?
hearsay evidence may be tendered and admitted by Court.

The above are but examples of the extreme powers that the State has during emergencies. Powers such as these are open to abuse and there is no mechanism to check this abuse. These regulations are not challengeable in any Courts of Law. Actions taken by the State under those emergency regulations are also not usually challengeable in any Courts of Law.

Nobody in their sane mind would say that Malaysia, in reality, is in a state of emergency now. Chaos, maybe. In a state of dream, perhaps. State of denial, obviously. State of incorrigible stupor, maybe too. But emergency? Excuse me.

The only reason why these proclamations of emergencies have not been lifted is because the government is desirous of maintaining all these draconian laws and regulations.

These regulations provide shortcuts to the likes of the police. Why bother investigate a case thoroughly when they can detain any person without trial and banish them to a certain district?

If it was true that the 3 youths have been stealing motorcycles, the obvious right thing to do in any civilised society is to have them produced before the Court and charged.

An obvious case of abuse of emergency ordinance is the case of the Kelantan’s claim for the petroleum royalty. The case for the government rests on the definition of state’s waters as defined in Section 4 (2) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1969, which provides that a state's waters is only within three nautical miles from its shores. (source: this article).

That is a classic abuse of emergency laws. How can an economic claim be settled by reference to a rule which is made to cater for a state of emergency?

The continuous existence of states of emergencies in Malaysia is repugnant to the notion that Malaysia is inching towards a the status of a developed state; that we are a liberal and tolerant society;that we are a country practising democracy with a vibrant society able to engage in a public and civil discourse over whatever issues which are important for nation building.

The police force is a law unto themselves in Malaysia. This has to stop immediately. Lest Malaysia would be viewed dimly by the international community. We are not a police state, yet. But we surely are displaying obvious symptoms of one.

The latest episode involving the summoning of Dato’ Ambiga nd YB KJ* is but an example of the police force acting at their whim and fancy. These two persons have not committed any offence. Nor have they, under the law, attempted to commit any offence. What power does the police force have to summon them to Bukit Aman? Why are they being summoned? What if they did not appear in Bukit Aman? What would the police do?

*as for Ibrahim Ali, there is obviously a reason, or even several reasons, to summon him.

Oh lawd…please don’t let me be misunderstood

2011-06-22T09:07:00.001+08:00

*A special dedication to all those who are misunderstood.

Baby, do you understand me now
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don't you know that no one alive
Can always be an angel
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

Yada yada yada…

For those disco-era guys, perhaps you would love this version more.

Wonder which version Ibrahim Ali prefers more.

Democracy and freedom of expression

2011-06-21T09:17:00.001+08:00

In The Wolf and the Silence of the Lamb, I said, among others:

“The core of democracy is representation. It is a system of governance where the people are represented by representatives who are elected by the people. These representatives then form a government. The government than governs the people. A state is then formed, consisting of the government and the people it governs.”

More importantly, I attempted to correct the popular notion that democracy was the cause of liberty. After alluding to Marx’ Utopian state, I opined:

“The obvious flaw in Marx's theory of a utopian society makes democracy a very alluring alternative. If at all, it pushes to the fore the false notion that liberty is the product of democracy, when in fact democracy is just but one of the many (flawed) ways of protecting liberty. Liberty is not caused by democracy. It rather is the cause for democracy.”

And I asked some sobering questions:

“That brings us to some sobering thoughts. Can liberty be usurped by democracy? Is it possible for a democracy to destroy liberty in itself? In that event, what will happen to democracy? Can it exist without liberty?”

I would like, in this article, to expand the theoretical postulation that the basis of democracy is liberty and freedom, in terms of the freedom of expression of the people in a democratic state.

I feel that a deep understanding of this area of the democracy theory is important, more particularly due to the current climate in Malaysia, where BERSIH is planning a rally for electoral reform on the 9th July this year while at the same time, the usual suspects of horror and doom, Perkasa, Ibrahim Ali and their ilk are planning to create disturbances.

Democracy, to my mind, starts with an expression of will by the people or a group of people. The will which was being expressed was the will to be represented in the governance and administration of the state which the people formed.

That will was expressed through the process of elections.

It would not thus be far fetched to say that a state of democracy is anchored to, and in fact born, out of that expression of will. The expression of the people’s will is therefore the thrust of democracy.

However, the expression of the people’s will does not end with the casting of votes. A true and dynamic democracy requires continuous engagement of minds between the State and its people. The elected representatives are not angels. They are not gods. Being human who are garbed with power robes, temptations lurk in every corner. Abuse of powers and positions are just but a finger snap away. Powers corrupts. Absolute powers corrupt absolutely, said a very wise man.

Furthermore, democracy is also tied up to mandate by numbers. Which means, the majority would win the right to rule. Regardless, the success of a democratic State is not in the manner in which the majority rules. It is measured by looking at how the majority balances and treats the rights and demands of the majority with the obvious desires and wants of the minority bearing in mind the general welfare of the State as a whole.

In such a dynamic and vibrant state of things, expression of the people continues – and must be allowed to continue – if a meaningful democracy were to exist.

The people express their will and mind. The State, via the government, listens and acts. The process continues. It is this continuous and mutual engagement of the will and mind, between the people and the State, which gives democracy its soul.

Democracy does not mean the people expressing their will by casting their votes once in 5 years and after that the elected representative could assume that they are “mandated” to do anything at their whim and fancy until their 5 year term ends at which time they come back for a new mandate. That is periodical absolutism. A benevolent absolutist – even a police - State masked as a democracy where democracy is used to legitimise the State’s penchant for sadistic and diabolical intents.

When there is a general intention to express the people’s will, it is not for the State to prevent such expression of will by citing security or economics reason. In a vibrant democracy, a responsible State should act to facilitate the expression of that will in a peaceful and orderly fashion. That is the duty of the State.

A State which act to prevent the lawful expression of will by the people which it governs is a State fearful of its own voice. That State loses its moral legitimacy to rule and to be respected.

The State must remember that the will of the people is insidious. That it exists inside their mind. What they wish to do is the express that will.

Even when such expression is supressed, either by the overt acts of the State of any of its machinations, the will still exists. It will not go away.

Although the expression of the will may be prevented, the will can’t.

My creative thoughts on the FB pages with unquantifiable creativity

2011-06-20T13:12:00.002+08:00

The Cuti-cuti 1Malaysia and Citrawarna 1 Malaysia FB pages are just about as creative as having sex with a personal friend in a hotel and getting caught doing it on video!

For the record, I did check out the two FB pages. There is nothing creative about them at all. They are just like any other FB pages.

There is the usual profile picture, which in the case of the Cuti-cuti 1Malaysia page, is the Petronas Twin Tower picture (how creative is that?) and in the case of the Citrawarna page, is a picture of whatever building with fireworks littered on it. The second picture is not even original as it bears the url of a website from which it was taken.

If that was creative, then boiling eggs and frying sardines must be creative too. So is passing motion in the morning.

By the way, I did a FB search on the other FB pages supposedly created by the Ministry of Tourism. I could not find the Festival Pelancongan Seni Kontemporari 1Malaysia page. Nor could I find the Kempen 1Malaysia Bersih page. Meanwhile, the Fabulous Food 1Malaysia is not even a page in the normal FB sense. It is just an invitation page consisting of 4 different invitations. Correct me if I am wrong. I stand corrected on this as I did not thoroughly search for them. All I did was to type the FB page name in the search box on FB and it did not yield any result.

Let me tell Minister Yen Yen and Choi Soi Lek about being creative without having to spend 1.8 million.

Those pages could do with a bit of sprucing up guys. Put on them pictures of sexy nice and obedient women wearing 1Malaysia bikini with a Visit Malaysia watermark and I guarantee you would have 300000 “likes” in 3 days.

In addition, put some applications where fully dressed sexy nice and obedient women could be undressed one by one by clicking on a Visit Malaysia icon which moves intermittently on the pictures.

Alternatively, try putting some apps which would allow visitors to click on only 2 pictures of sexy nice and obedient women after which they have to mandatorily click on a Visit Malaysia icon before proceeding to view another 2 pictures. Repeat ad infinitum.

Just to maintain the cheapskate approach, the pictures do not have to be originals. Just steal them from the Net and paste it on the pages. Just make sure you all do not mark “X” on the forehead of the women in the picture because that is not so nice lah.

I guarantee there will be about a million “likes” in about a month if you follow my suggestion.

While we are talking about tourism, may I suggest something to Minister Yen Yen please? No. I am not going to charge 1.8 million. Promise. I swear. But if you are going to give me some money, I take lah.

Here’s my suggestion.

BERSIH is going to rally on 9th July. PERKASA is joining with banners and probably with some effigies too. I am sure a lot of burning pictures and effigies will take place too. YB Khairy Jamaluddin and his UMNO Youth guys are going to be there too. At the time of writing this, the Obedient Wife Club has not decided whether to obediently follow their husband in the planned rally.

The police and FRU will surely be there too. There will be batons, rotans, guns and tear gases. And yes, a lot of water courtesy of water canons from that red water vehicle.

You know APCO would charge you 5 million for this advice.

I am doing it for free.

You see, why not spin the whole event to the foreigners, especially the ever gullible Singaporeans (Malaysia should start coaxing the Singaporeans to come visiting Malaysia again you know, after the nude squat incidents recently).

How to spin it, you ask?

Easy. Tell the foreigners, especially the ever so gullible Singaporeans, that the BERSIH rally is Malaysia’s annual answer to the Thai water festival, otherwise known as the Songkran.

How? Creative or not?

And it doesn’t cost you a single sen.

What were you saying again, YB Datuk Zulkifli Noordin?

2011-06-17T15:03:00.001+08:00

I read the Malaysian Insider report that YB Datuk Zul Noordin had called to prevent the planned BERSIH rally on July the 9th.

By the way, I did not know that the YB had been bestowed a Datukship. I am sure he deserves it. Congratulations YB Datuk.

YBDZN (short for Yang Berhormat Datuk Zulkifli Noordin – I learn to shorten things from PEMANDU), for the uninitiated, stood in the 2008 GE in Kulim under the PKR banner. His political tagline was, “it was time to change, new hope.”

During the campaign, he repeatedly reminded the voters to use their vote wisely. He implored them to use their “sacred hands” to choose a candidate who was commanding and not to chose a devil masked as an angel. This was what he wrote on his blog on 27th Februuary 2008:

“Undilah calon yang berwibawa, bukan jerangkung bertopeng dewa.”

I admire his tenacity and conviction, I must say.

He asked the people to vote someone who was clean, someone who was not corrupted or corruptible. He wanted a stronger opposition to fight abuse of power; to fight against corruption and to fight for a better Malaysia. He asked the people to vote for a responsible representative who would fight for the people’s rights and whatever things which are closed to the people’s heart. Love this!

However, unfortunately, perhaps while suffering a momentary lapse of refinement, he was also prone to a bit of theatrical indulgence such as displayed by this, which appeared on his blog on 5th March 2008 titled “Orang kata KJ macam beruk…”:

That was most unfortunate. But hey, the man has his opinion.

As he was feeling the heat of the election campaign – which was understandable, as he was a rookie of sorts – he developed a dislike against the then Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya (SPR). It looked like the “macam beruk” blog post was not the last showing of his penchant for name calling.

This was evident in his post, titled, almost inevitably, "SPR Barua BN." Wow. For a person who describes himself as the “servant of Allah” and who always fight for Islam, he was very Islam in his language. But hey, the man has an opinion, right?

In that post, YBDZN berated SPR for cancelling the usage of the indelible ink in the 2008 GE. He wrote:

“Memang kita sedia maklum mengharapkan ketelusan daripada SPR samalah seperti mengharap gajah dapat melepasi mata jarum.”

Then in April 2008, he advocated freedom of expression by speaking, not once, but three times, about a planned gathering called “Black 14” as a show of support for Anwar Ibrahim. His three posts on that subject appeared here, here and here.

Then, on 21st August 2008, he reproduced a letter from Dato’ Salehuddin Hashim, the then Secretary General of PKR to the SPR, which, among others say:

“Saya sangat mempersoalkan kredibiliti dan kerja SPR kerana apa yang timbul bukanlah perkara baru malahan ianya adalah perkara sama yang berbangkit pada setiap kali pilihanraya walaupun berbagai-bagai aduan, kritikan, dan cadangan telah dikemukakan kepada pihak SPR.

Sehubungan dengan itu saya meminta dan berharap agar SPR dapat meneliti untuk bertindak dengan serius dan bersungguh-sungguh terhadap aduan yang saya kemukakan seperti berikut;

i. Nama Pengundi Hilang

ii. Pemilihan Hari Bekerja Sebagai Hari Membuang Undi

iii. Menggunakan Agensi Kerajaan Untuk Tujuan Kempen Umno/BN

iv. Laporan Media Yang Berat Sebelah

v. Penggunaan Pasukan Anggota Keselamatan

vi. Mengambil Kad Pengenalan Pengundi

vii. Sogokan Wang kepada Pengundi

Dilaporkan bahawa kempen Umno/BN telah menggunakan sogokan wang untuk meraih undi. Petugas Umno/Bn bertemu pengundi menawarkan wang supaya pengundi diminta mengundi calon Umno/BN atau pun pengundi menyerahkan kad pengenalan mereka. Tindakan ini selain menyalahi etika pilihanraya dan mempunyai unsur amalan rasuah.

Kerjasama dan tindakan dari pihak Tan Sri saya hargai dengan ucapan terima kasih. Semoga usaha bersama kita memartabatkan demokrasi Malaysia akan mencapai kejayaan.”

It thus came as a complete surprised, and not to mention, puzzlement, that YBDZN was quoted by the Malaysian Insider report saying as follows:

“Datuk Zulkifli Noordin said today that Malays will weaken themselves if they are used by anti-Islamic leaders organising next month’s Bersih rally to call for free and fair elections.”

I suppose YBDZN now does not think that the SPR is “barua” BN anymore. And I suppose YBDZN now feels that all his concerns listed above have been adequately addressed by the SPR.

Hey, the man has a right to form an opinion okay. And obviously, that is his current opinion.

Harun bin Mahmud

2011-06-16T15:20:00.001+08:00

1930-1984

This is him. My father. My father whom I never quite knew as I lived with my grandfather and grandmother since I was one.

Although he was, like many old-school father, aloof and almost unapproachable, I always knew that he was watching me from afar.

I would ask for money to buy books from him and he would say he's got no money yet.

Deep down inside I detected sadness in his eyes when he said that. Because I knew he would give, if he had. Sure enough, when he had the money, he would ask me whether I still needed the book that I’d wanted before.

I will always remember the day I got my letter of admission to the University of Malaya. In his own way he was elated but he wouldn't jump for joy.

He came to me that evening, shirtless as usual and wearing a rolled up kain pelikat. He stood beside me and said, "Art, ayah heard you got to do law at UM." I said "yes". "You are not like your brothers, you know (referring to the fact that I didn't study hard like my brothers)," he said. He looked at me intently and asked, "would you pass?". I was surprised and after a while I said, "I think I would."

There was this look of satisfaction in his eyes. And he said, "that's good."

That's him. He would watch over me from afar and kept his feelings inside. When he had doubts, he would ask. And when he gets the answer from me, he would take it at face value as he never judged me or any one of us, his kids.

He would then take a hundred dollar note and gave me. He said, "you would need a new pair of football boots in the uni. Go and buy them tomorrow. Use all 100 dollars. Buy a really really good pair," he said.

I was so surprised and was in fact speechless. I was a footballer. My grandma hated that. She did not like me playing football, perhaps because she was worried that I would hurt myself. I had to save my school money for four months to buy my first pair of football boots. And there he was, giving me 100 bucks to splash on a pair. One hundred dollars of his hard earned money. A whole month’s kitchen budget!

“Take it,” he said. “Ayah don’t have more to give.”

I took the money and thanked him. He said, "ayah only has that much. You go and buy a pair tomorrow. And good luck in your studies at the uni." He then walked away.

I bought a pair of Adidas Adi with that money in Alor Star the next day.

One evening, opening the door to my room at the residential college, there was a note on the floor. “Ayah in Uni Hospital, don’t worry, not bad,” it read. I rushed to the hospital on foot and there he was, sitting on the edge of the hospital bed. Seeing me he quickly declared, “I am ok, just a bit tired.”

As it turned out, he was tired because he had kidney problems. I visited him everyday, bringing food for him because according to him the hospital food was “langsung tak sedap, garam tak rasa apa pun tak rasa.”

One day he was describing to me that the nurse had inserted a hell of a long needle into his back and it was really painful. I think that was the biopsy which he had to undergo.

On the eve of his discharge from the hospital he told me he had two requests. “Tell your brother Idrus I want the fragrance which he uses and tell Dad (my eldest brother) I want to eat in a nice restaurant, if he’s free.”

The next night, me and all three of my elder brothers had a real nice dinner at the Chinese restaurant at Lake Club. My father was happy. He looked so alive. That was, I think, his very first trip to Kuala Lumpur! We then said good bye and the next day he left for home.

I still remember the day he died. He was there in a coma, lying in bed at the hospital. People were reading Yasin. I was sitting beside him crying. I was going to lose my father. A father I never quite took the trouble to know and to be close with.

An old man walked into the room, gave the salam. He asked who the head of the family was in the room. My brother said he was. The old man asked permission to read the Yasin. My brother said it was okay.

The old man sat at the end of the bed and cited Yasin by heart. He finished, gave the salam, and left.

My father passed away moments after that.

The father I never quite knew.