Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Till death do us part
- The Istana influence in politics
- Remember we did this in primary school?
- Let the pictures do the talking
- Relative to time and place
- By whose interpretation?
- Touché
- The trouble with mother-tongue education
- I believe, hence I am right
- When different yardsticks are applied
| Posted: 06 Sep 2012 06:57 PM PDT
I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "Till death do us part," goes the marriage vows. But in many cases that never happens. In the US, about 40% of marriages end in divorce whereas in the UK it is slightly lower. Whatever it may be, an average of more than one-third of marriages in the US and UK does not end with the death of one of the partners. It ends earlier than that and the divorce rate for second and thirds marriages is even higher, according to the statistics. I suppose people change. Interests change. Priorities change. Age sometimes also plays a part. As we get older we change our mind or our value system. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. There could be many reasons or a combination of reasons as to why some couples are just not able to keep their marriage vows. Or it could be because you got tired of eating curry every day and now you want to change your diet and taste some tom yam. Some people tell me that when you eat curry at home every day you sometimes want to go out for some tom yam. The only thing is, don't get caught lest your wife does a 'Bobbit' on you. Change is the only thing that is constant, if you know what I mean. In my younger days, I used to love going to discos (what kids nowadays call clubbing). By the time I was 27, I preferred to spend my time at the mosque listening to the ustaz preach religion. Another 27 years later -- by the time I was 54 (that was eight years ago) -- I got bored with the same old sermons. We appeared to be going nowhere with all this talk regarding rukun and hukum. I wanted to know more, not just about batal wuduk, batal puasa, batal sembahyang, hukum nikah, hukum cerai, and whatnot. So I stopped going to the mosque to listen to sermons that I had been hearing for more than half my life and which I already knew by heart and could utter in my sleep. I suppose this is what the journey of life is all about. As you travel farther down the road you begin to see things differently and this changes you and the way you look at things. And when you reach the forks or junctions in your life you may decide to take the left lane rather than the right lane, as you have been doing so many times before. I mean, when you keep taking the same right lane every time and you find that the scenery does not change you might, out of curiosity, decide this time to try the left lane to see what happens. Then you discover that the left lane actually offers the answers to the questions you have been asking for decades but never found the answers to. It is no different in politics. Anwar Ibrahim, in his secondary school days, was fiercely anti-British. Considering that Malaya (not even 'Malaysia' yet at that time) had just gained independence barely three years before that, this is not surprising. The Merdeka spirit still burned very strongly in many people in 1960, Anwar included. But as we got farther and farther away from 1957, Merdeka got reduced to something that we read in the history books. Why did Anwar need to continue screaming about Merdeka when we were already Merdeka? Anwar then began to talk about Malay nationalism. And with that he talked about the Malay language and why Malay should replace English, even for the street names. Anwar's nationalist fight from 1968 to 1971 was through the Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) and the Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM). Thereafter, Mountbatten Road got changed to Jalan Mountbatten and eventually to Jalan Tun Perak. Birch Road (named after the eighth Resident of Perak, Sir Ernest Woodford Birch) was renamed Jalan Birch and again to Jalan Maharajalela -- named after the man who killed James Wheeler Woodford Birch (the first Resident of Perak) -- and many more all over the country. In 1974, Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act. Not long after that, Anwar became an Islamist and started to fight for more Islamisation through the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), which was formed in 1972. In those days, Anwar worked very closely with the Islamic party, PAS, and was a strong supporter of the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, as was I. In 1982, Anwar did a U-turn and, again, became a Malay nationalist when he joined Umno. I must admit that in the early 1960s I disagreed with Anwar's anti-British and pro-Malay language stand. But after he got released from ISA and became an active Islamist around 1976-1977 (by then I was already an Islamist myself, as I explained above), I did a U-turn and supported him. I would attend most of the rallies that PAS organised in the East Coast where Anwar was a speaker. But when Anwar joined Umno in 1982, I washed my hands off him. There was one occasion when he flew to Kuala Terengganu with his Umno Youth entourage and I completely ignored him although I was seated right behind him in the plane. By the way, he also ignored me, so it was mutual. Then, of course, that brings us to 1998, but I have already told that story so many times before so maybe it is not necessary that I talk about it again. Suffice to say, in 1998, I forgave Anwar for his betrayal and rallied behind him in support of Reformasi. But that only lasted six years. In 2004, I again 'divorced' Anwar and chose to fight my own battle through Malaysia Today, although I still aligned myself to the opposition, in particular DAP, who I campaigned for in 2008. Sometimes marriages last. Sometimes they do not. In the US and the UK more than one-third of marriages do not. But it happens and even the 'till death do us part' vow uttered in church do get broken. Nevertheless, when the relationship no longer works you need to just move on and look for a new relationship. Even then there is no guarantee that the next one will work. Will, under such a situation, an anti-hopping law work? Is it even democratic in the first place? What about freedom of association, as enshrined in the Constitution? Do we remove that Article that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association? Basically, that is what it would tantamount to. Say, you are a member of DAP. And, say, DAP agrees to hold a referendum on whether Malaysia should be turned into an Islamic State with the Islamic law of Hudud as the law of the land. And, also say, DAP agrees that if 51% of Malaysians vote in favour of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State then DAP will not oppose it. Would you agree to that? Would you be of the opinion that the voting will be clean and honest and that there will be no rigging? Would you accept whatever the outcome of the referendum because it is your party's decision and you will not oppose your party's decision although you are opposed to an Islamic State? Or would you want the freedom of resigning from DAP because you are of the opinion that an Islamic State will not work for Malaysia? I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. Yes, changing your position does happen. And you may have reasons for that although others may not share these reasons. But this is what democracy is all about -- the right to change your mind and your position. Hence, if this right is taken away from you, then democracy itself has been removed. Anwar has changed his position a few times, as have I. But to condemn Anwar for his ever-changing position when he has every democratic right to change his views (as he gets older) is a violation of these rights. We all change, as we get older. My friend from DAP, YB Ronnie Liu, used to be a Communist in his younger days. But weren't many of us Communists when we were younger, me included? In fact, I still buy and wear Che Guevara T-shirts even until today. However, as we mature and as we lose some at that idealism, we begin to change. Today, Ronnie is as Communist as Madonna is a virgin. In short, till death do us part is a fallacy. And even the Catholic Church has had to reluctantly accept this reality. But would a Catholic cease to be a Catholic just because he or she broke her marriage vow of 'till death do us part'? |
| The Istana influence in politics Posted: 03 Sep 2012 06:56 PM PDT
The Istana influence in politics and elections should not be downplayed or underestimated. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah understood this well when he said that the Rulers are the symbol of kedaulatan Melayu. Hitting out at the Rulers would be as 'criminal' as someone stepping on the Malaysian flag. What harm is there in stepping on the Malaysian flag? Has anything been lost? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Malaysia's 1990 general election was the worst election performance for the ruling party since 1969. Barisan Nasional won only 53.4% of the votes and 70.55% of the seats. The opposition, which won 46.6% of the votes, performed almost as good as it did in 2008 when it garnered 46.76% of the popular votes. The biggest blow to the ruling party, however, was that it got massacred in the state of Kelantan, which fell to the opposition and has remained opposition ever since. DAP, which for the first time was in a loose coalition with Semangat 46 -- called Gagasan Rakyat -- won 20 Parliament seats. PBS, another Semangat 46 'partner' in Sabah, won 14 seats while the Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah or APU coalition with PAS won 15 Parliament seats plus the Kelantan State Assembly. Now, what is so special about the 1990 general election? 1990 was the first general election after the (second) Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s (there were two incidences in the 1980s but Umno lost the first one and won the second one). And in that Constitutional Crisis Annuar Musa, the Umno Chief for Kelantan, called the Kelantan Sultan stupid in a speech he delivered in Kelantan while Anwar Ibrahim called His Highness a smuggler (regarding the Lamborghini incident). This infuriated the Sultan who openly declared war on Umno and which resulted in Umno getting whacked big-time. Even Umno members voted opposition in huge numbers. Since then both Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno have learned their lesson. The Monarchy may be only a Constitutional Monarchy and without executive powers, and some may even view the Monarchy as outdated and no longer relevant, but the Malays still regard the Monarchy as a 'sacred cow' that should not be dragged though the mud -- just like how they feel about Islam, the Malay language and kedaulatan Melayu. No doubt 'modern' Malaysians cannot grasp this 'weird' sentiment and they just do not understand why those 'old' values can still have a bearing on how Malays vote. This is, of course, a very 'rural' thing -- hence urban Malaysians would not understand this. But if you have lived in a kampong, like I did for 20 years from 1974-1994, then you will appreciate how the Malay mind works and what makes them tick. I mean, you may not see the significance of Malay 'values' just like how Malays would not understand the significance of the colour red over white when you hand out ang pows during Chinese New Year. Every ethnicity has strange 'values' that the others do not understand. The Istana influence in politics and elections should not be downplayed or underestimated. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah understood this well when he said that the Rulers are the symbol of kedaulatan Melayu. Hitting out at the Rulers would be as 'criminal' as someone stepping on the Malaysian flag. What harm is there in stepping on the Malaysian flag? Has anything been lost? It is not the physical loss that people are concerned about but the significance or symbolism of that act. Stepping on the Malaysian flag means pissing on Malaysia. Hence 'stepping' on the Rulers (Raja-Raja Melayu) also means pissing on the Malays. Strange, don't you think so? I suppose no stranger than believing that white envelopes bring bad luck while red envelopes will make you rich and prosperous -- or that giving someone money in a white envelope during Chinese New Year equates to pissing on the Chinese. And isn't the crucifix also about symbolism? If not then why can't Muslims wear a crucifix? What 'physical' harm does it do? I cautioned my friends in the DAP (YB Ronnie Liu can conform this) that the Selangor State Government has to step very cautiously when dealing with the Rulers. You can't always say yes, no doubt, I told Ronnie. Sometimes you may need to say no. But you must know the 'correct' way of saying no so that 'no' is not taken as a rebuke or a snub. And that is the most difficult thing whenever protocol is involved. And proper protocol 'education' is not something you are born with. It is something you acquire along the way. Even the underworld has certain protocol, which you need to observe. Just walking requires protocol as well because walking side-by-side, walking in front, and walking behind, mean different things and will send different messages (read: Rosmah Mansor). But observing proper protocol requires putting aside egos. Observing proper protocol is an admission that you are subservient to convention. Walking upright into a room where an elder or senior is seated or walking slightly 'bent' means two different things. Gesturing or pointing with your finger and gesturing or pointing with your thumb also means two different things. Those of you who complain that you were extorted or beaten up by triad members back in your schooldays in the 1960s probably failed to understand the importance of protocol -- the correct and incorrect hand gestures, when to and when not to have eye-to-eye contact, etc. Yes, even the underworld practices protocol, as does the Istana. And if you need to deal with the Istana you had better learn the proper manners or else limit your dealings as far as possible. Of course, when you are in government this is not always a choice open to you. I know…I know…many of you are now going to say that you don't care a damn and that this is so feudalistic and outdated and whatnot. That is well and fine maybe from where you sit. But when the majority of the Malays are still feudalistic and when many of the seats are Malay-majority seats it matters. And let us not discover the hard way like Umno did in 1990 that what they thought does not matter, in fact, does matter and then we pay a heavy price for our arrogance and ignorance. Oh, and one more thing, Anwar Ibrahim, alongside Dr Mahathir, of course, is viewed as an enemy of the Monarchy. Hence it is even more important for Anwar to not rub the Istana the wrong way. Between Najib Tun Razak -- an 'orang Istana' -- and Anwar, the Rulers would rather see Najib as Prime Minister. So be warned.  THE ANTI-MONARCHISTS OF THE 1980S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
|
| Remember we did this in primary school? Posted: 03 Sep 2012 04:11 PM PDT
Do you remember back in primary school when we were still kids and when we quarrelled we would 'step on your father's head'? We did this by throwing a piece of paper on the ground and then declaring that it was the head of our enemy's father before we stepped on it. After more than 50 years we are still doing that. Actually, we have never really grown up much even though we may have grown old. Our body became big but our brain remains tiny. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
|
| Let the pictures do the talking Posted: 02 Sep 2012 02:39 PM PDT
Many accuse me of being cheong hei. Well, today I am not going to write anything. Instead I am just going to show you some pictures and see if you are smart enough to get the message. If not then never mind. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
|
| Posted: 01 Sep 2012 05:52 PM PDT
Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow). NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives--indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame. But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions? Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God. Dr. William Lane Craig **************************************** That was just three paragraphs of a long thesis by Dr. William Lane Craig, which I had to read for my Philosophy of Religion course. Basically, we were going through the various arguments to support the belief regarding the existence of God and one of those arguments was that God certainly has to exist since God is the source of morality. Hence, since morality exists then God definitely has to exist. Hence, also, we know what is right and what is wrong because God 'tells' us what is right and what is wrong (or implants in us the notion of right and wrong) and if there were no God then we would not know what is right and what is wrong. (Note: this is just one of the various arguments that theists use to support the view that God exists). In my essay, I disagreed with this 'popular' view based on the argument that right and wrong are relative to time and place and are dynamic, not static. In other words, the definition of right and wrong changes over time and over regions. There would certainly be a very long list of examples to emphasis this point but let us take just a few. Slavery would be one example. At one time slavery was considered right anywhere in the world. Today, slavery is considered wrong, but only is some parts of the world. Do you know that as recent as just before Merdeka slavery still existed in Malaya? I am not going to go into details lest I embarrass certain members of the Royal Family but just let me summarise it by saying that many of my 'adopted cousins' would be considered slaves by western standards (and I emphasis 'western standards')? In fact, J.W.W. Birch, the first British Resident of Perak, was killed in Pasir Salak on 2nd November 1875 because of his opposition to slavery. Birch had attempted to ban slave trading in Perak and the slave traders, basically the elite of the Perak ruling hierarchy, got rid of him. It took another 100 years before slavery really ended and I was already around to see it before it ended. No doubt this is never discussed (for obvious reasons) and Malaysians generally are not aware of this scourge. And it was not just the Malays who were guilty of this; let me assure you of that. The point I want to make, though, is that slavery, which is considered wrong, would only be wrong depending on the time and place you happened to be living in. So, are you sure that wrong is wrong? Could it not actually be right? And does right become wrong only because you happen to live in a certain region and in a certain time and that if you lived somewhere else and in another time this would be right rather than wrong? Hence, my conclusion in the essay which I wrote was that right and wrong is relative. And since it is relative, how can morality come from God? If morality came from God then it would not change over time and region. It would be static, not dynamic. So, if you use morality to argue the existence of God, then God cannot exist because morality does not exist. Now, when I say 'morality does not exist' I mean it in the sense that what is moral to one person may be immoral to another. Having four wives would be considered immoral, as would be the case for keeping mistresses. But that would only be immoral now, and in western society. In Muslim countries, for example, that is not immoral. So, again, time and place decides what is moral and what is immoral. Take the definition of children, as another example. A couple of hundreds of years ago, 'children' were those who had not reached puberty yet (or girls who are yet to get their period). In 1212, tens of thousands of boys and girls aged 9-13 were sent to the Crusades. (Read 'La croisade des enfants' [The Children's Crusade] 1896, by Marcel Schwob). Today, these 9-13-year old boys and girls are considered children but back then they were adults and old enough to be sent to fight against the Muslims. Incidentally, none of them returned home. Hence even the definition of children changed over time and place and today sex with a 13-year old girl is considered a crime (immoral) because at 13 she is classified as still a child. In the past, though, at 13, a girl was not only old enough to get married but also old enough (moral) to be sent to war and to die for Christ. But times have changed. Today we no longer use religion's definition of adult to classify children as adults. Today we use man-made laws and not God's law to define adults as those above 18 while those below 18 are considered still children -- although in the past a girl of 18 would be considerer too old and her chances of getting a husband at that age would be reduced drastically. I am okay with that, though. I realise that slavery is now no-go and adults would legally be those above 18 (even though slavery is still legal in Islam). No longer can we use old standards and yardsticks. All those old values used to determine morality need to be discarded in favour of modern standards. My only question is why is this limited to just some things? In the past, children of 13 were considered adults and at the same time children had to follow the religion of their parents. If they did not they would be killed as apostates. Apostasy, in short, was punishable by death. Today, we ban the practice of classifying 13-year olds as adults. You need to be 18 to be an adult (in England, you can't even buy cigarettes and liquor). But we do not ban the practice of forcing children to follow the religion of their parents. Children must follow the religion of their parents or would otherwise be punished. Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow). So, when you say this is right or that is wrong, or this is moral and that is immoral, whose standard are you applying? My standard? Your standard? Society's standard? Religious standard? Western standard? Constitutional standard? Which one? You argue one point using one standard and another point using a different standard. You decide right and wrong and moral and immoral using what you believe to be right/moral or wrong/immoral. And you expect me to lead my life according to the standards you have drawn up. If we wish to set certain standards and pass a law that 13 is no longer the age of consent and that an adult is someone who is 18 that is acceptable to me. In fact, that may be good. We redefine right/wrong and moral/immoral. But we should not stop there. There are many other so-called wrongs and immoralities that also need to be addressed. And one such 'old value' that is just as outdated as classifying 13-year olds as adults is to use religious values to interfere in how I wish to lead my life. That is as outdated as sending 9-13 year olds to die in a war or to get them married off before they reach 15-16 and thus become too old to get married. |
| Posted: 29 Aug 2012 06:42 PM PDT
Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
You may have noticed that I have not written a thing regarding former national youth squad bowler Noor Afizal Azizan's statutory rape case. First of all, I thought that since every man and his dog was already talking about it you don't really need me to comment as well. I mean it is not quite the untold story that I normally like to dabble in. It is more like the 'over-told' story. Furthermore, do you really need more 'noise'? There is such a thing called overkill and flogging a dead horse (an idiom). There is also such a thing called information overload, which makes people lethargic and sometimes immune to the issue. Hence 'too much' can be counter-productive. Secondly, this appears to have turned into an opposition crusade, which is bad. Once it is perceived as a political issue rather than an issue of justice, people become divided on the issue based on political leanings and not because it is either the right thing or the wrong thing. People will oppose right or support wrong if the criteria is politics. Take crossovers as one example. Anyway, what is my take on the issue? Okay, are you outraged about the court's decision because you are an opposition supporter or because it is morally (or legally) wrong to not classify the case as statutory rape instead of consensual sex? (Note that even some of those in government feel the same way as you do although they speak 'gentler' in expressing their view and without the venom). I think a more important question would be are you capable of setting aside politics when you talk about this issue -- or any issue for that matter that involves justice, civil liberties, etc? Can we leave our Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat hats outside the door and come to the table as Malaysians of common interests and concerns? That is the one thing we find most difficult to do. It is always politics first and everything else second, even in matters such as Hudud, which is supposed to be above politics but is not. Okay, so a man (or boy) has sex with an underage girl. My first question would be: are the men/boy and girl Muslims? If they are then this is zina (illicit sex or sex outside marriage). And is not zina a crime under the Sharia (Islamic law)? Hence should not the boy and girl be tried under the Sharia? If the man/boy and girl were both above 18 they would have been brought to the Sharia court. Why are they not brought to the Sharia court just because one or both are below 18? In Islam, the 'age of consent' would be the age of puberty. For girls that would be once she gets her period and that could even be when she is nine years old. According to the Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet Muhammad married Aishah when she was six but did not 'take her' until she was nine. And aren't Muslims supposed to believe in and strictly follow the Hadith and Sunnah or else they cease to be Muslims and would become kafir (infidels). Hence if the girl is 13 and she already has her period, is she legally (in Islam, that is) a woman who can consent to sex or is she still a child? And hence, also, since she is a Muslim and 'legally a woman', is she accountable for her 'crime' of consenting to sex or is she blameless? In other words, if the Sharia court were to try them, would both be on trial or only the man/boy? Okay, we can argue that the Sharia court does not come into play here. This matter does not involve the Sharia court. Why not? If Muslims above 18 'get caught' for illicit sex they get dragged to the Sharia court. The common law court has no power to try Muslim adults who have sex outside marriage. In fact, sex outside marriage is not a crime under common law (even for Muslims) unless it is same-gender or gay sex. Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18? Okay, what if the church or Christians preaches Christianity to Malay boys and girls of 13 or 14 (in short, below 18). Is this a crime? A crime under which law? Common law? Under common law it is not a crime to preach Christianity to Malay children. It is only a crime according to the Religious Department. But the Religious Department does not have power over us until we are 18. Islam recognises 9-year olds as adults. Common law does not. We are adults only at 18. And common law decides whether we are adults. Not the Religious Department. So how? The question is: who has power over Muslims? The common law courts or the Sharia courts? And why does the common law court have power over us until we are 18 and then the Sharia court takes over after that? Is age 18 the 'legally adult' age in Islam? And if 18 were the legal adult age under Islam, can Muslims below 18 get married? Yes, Muslims below 18 can get marriage on condition they are 'adults' (meaning reached puberty) and they have their parent's consent. Hence at that age they are already responsible for their own actions, even in crimes of illicit sex. But then we are not talking about the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law here. We are talking about common law. Hence common law overrides the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law and will decide at what age you are an adult and at what age you are still a child. And you will face the common law court when you are legally a child and the Sharia court once you are legally an adult. And although Islam has decided the age of adulthood, Islam has no power over Muslims because the laws of the land and Islam do not work in tandem. Crazy or not? In Islam, religion decides when we become an adult and hence can get married and have sex. But Islam does not have the power to decide at what age we would be considered as having consensual sex outside marriage. That the common law decides. And that age is 18. Now, who decides when we cease being a child and legally become an adult although at the age of nine we already discovered the difference between a boy and girl and knew what to do with that thing between our legs? Well, the 222 Members of Parliament, of course. They pass all the laws and they have decided that only at age 17 we can drive and at age 18 we can have sex and at age 21 we can vote. But why at age 17, 18 and 21 respectively? Queen Isabella of Valois married Richard II when she was 6 years, 11 months and 25 days old. David II married Joan, the daughter of Edward II, when he was 4 years and 134 days old. Louis XIV of France became King at age 5 and took over full control at 23. Joan of Arc led the French against the English at age 17. And of course we have that story regarding Aishah, the wife of Prophet Muhammad. In those days, you married as soon as you legally became a woman, which was when you got your period, and would have been around age 9-11. At age 10-13 boys joined the army and fought and died for their country. These were ages when you were no longer children. I know, times have changed and we no longer consider girls of 10 or boys of 13 as adults. That may be so when it comes to common law but not if we consider religion. So, are we outraged about the case of Noor Afizal Azizan because we perceive it as him having sex with an underage girl and the law says a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex and hence he broke the law? Okay, so it is the law that we are concerned about, am I correct? The law says that a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex. This is a law passed by Parliament, the body that can legally pass laws, which we all must follow. And since Noor Afizal Azizan broke the law passed by Parliament we are outraged. Okay, I can accept that. The law must be followed. After all this is a law passed by Parliament. But hold on, Parliament also passed a law that says we must get a police permit if we want to hold a demonstration. Should this law not also be followed since we are extremely concerned about the law? Was Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim therefore correct in that the law must be followed? Hmm...touché or not touché?
|
| Posted: 28 Aug 2012 06:47 AM PDT
Itulah. When I try to tell you, you cakap macam-macam. Now I diam. And now that I diam you all are foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs. Hey, just focus on the next general election. Just vote Pakatan Rakyat. Why worry whether Cina bertanding kawasan Melayu or Melayu bertanding kawasan Cina or whether after this we are going to get Hudud or Muslims keluar Islam masuk Kristian? All that never mindlah! What matters is asal bukan Umno. Itu saja. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
To the Malay-medium or Chinese- and Tamil-educated readers who think that 'the devil you know' refers to a verse in the Qur'an or Bible, touché means...oh what the hell, go look it up yourself. Is it too early to write another 'I told you so' article? Well, as they say, the early bird catches the worm, so it is never too early to say 'I told you so'. Now, for those of you who don't speak English at home or English is not your mother-tongue -- my late mother was British so I suppose I can claim that English is my mother's tongue -- I am NOT admitting that I am a bird or that I eat worms, although I do have a 'bird', if you know what I mean. This is what we English-speaking people would call an idiom, the latest topic of discussion in Malaysia -- alongside Hudud, crossovers, and other such matters. Anyway, back to the early bird catches the worm thing. I did try to tell you so many times about the unresolved issues facing Pakatan Rakyat. And I did not just write about it in Malaysia Today. I even said this to Anwar Ibrahim's face in a forum in London. I did not hold my punches (an idiom). I said it no holds barred (yet another idiom). And this got not only Anwar but also all the other Pakatan Rakyat leaders hot under the collar (yes, another idiom). Finally, I decided to say what I had been trying to tell them in interviews in the mainstream media. Boy, and did all hell break loose (correct, again, an idiom). They felt I was trying to teach grandfathers how to suck eggs (a Malaysian-Chinese idiom which means...hmm...not sure what that means because I am a grandfather of five grandkids and I certainly don't suck eggs). Then they started accusing me of being on someone's payroll and demanded to know where my funding was coming from. And, today, Suaram has come out to admit that it is indeed being financed through foreign funding to the tune of RM100,000 a month for the last many years (read about it here). So there you are. Touché. Then there was the matter of crossovers plus the lack of quality of the people that Pakatan Rakyat was attracting that I spoke about. Now even the Pakatan Rakyat people are divided on whether it is morally right to poach politicians from the opposite side of the fence. And many voters have said that in the coming general election they will be voting based on candidates and not based on parties. So, again, touché! I also spoke about the lack of unity in Pakatan Rakyat and how DAP, PAS and PKR tidur satu bantal tapi mimpi lain-lain (a Malay idiom). I touched on the inter-party and intra-party bickering and how the issue of seat allocations and who should be taking the lead needs to be resolved. And today, again, touché! Then there is the matter of Hudud, which had earlier resulted in the breakup of the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, followed by the 2004 general election disaster, and how this matter needs to be resolved before Pakatan Rakyat faces the coming general election (read about it here). And, yet again, touché! Okay, those are just some of the issues I have been screaming about. There are many more, of course. And when they responded with personal attacks against me, and allegations of mala fide and paid assassin and so on, I took to the mainstream media and that was the straw that broke the camel's back (yeap, one more in my string of idioms -- don't you just love this English language lesson?). So, what more can I say other than touché? I am not really that silly after all, am I? Now I keep quiet. Now I just watch and snigger while all you buggers squeal like a stuck pig (you got it, another idiom). So, why make so much noise about Hudud? You want ABU (anything but Umno), right? Hudud is not Umno. So why get so upset? As long as it is not Umno then diamlah! Itulah. When I try to tell you, you cakap macam-macam. Now I diam. And now that I diam you all are foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs. Hey, just focus on the next general election. Just vote Pakatan Rakyat. Why worry whether Cina bertanding kawasan Melayu or Melayu bertanding kawasan Cina or whether after this we are going to get Hudud or Muslims keluar Islam masuk Kristian? All that never mindlah! What matters is asal bukan Umno. Itu saja. Touché!
|
| The trouble with mother-tongue education Posted: 27 Aug 2012 04:11 PM PDT
I was puzzled. I asked my Chinese friends: why support the opposition and yet vote government? And these Chinese told me: "Barisan Nasional may be the devil, but better we vote for the devil we know than the angel we don't know. We know Barisan Nasional and we know how to handle them. We don't know the opposition and we are not sure what they will be like if they came to power." NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Kenyataan Mahathir memakan diri Dalam al-Quran tiada istilah malaikat lebih buruk berbanding syaitan Khaulah Azwar, FMT Timbalan Mursyidul Am PAS, Datuk Dr Haron Din, menegaskan tidak ada istilah atau ayat di dalam Al Quran yang menjelaskan syaitan lebih baik dari malaikat. "Di dalam al Quran juga tidak terdapat ayat yang mengatakan malaikat sama ada dikenali atau tidak dikenali sebagai makhluk Allah yang lebih buruk atau derhaka kepada perintah Allah." "Malaikat dijadikan Allah sebagai makhluk yang patuh dan tidak derhaka akan perintah-Nya. Mereka akan kekal begitu sejak dari awal hingga ke akhirnya." "Ia berlawanan dengan sifat syaitan kerana mereka memang diakui sebagai makhluk yang jahat dan derhaka kepada perintah Allah," katanya. Pemimpin PAS itu mengulas kenyataan dibuat bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dalam blognya www.chedet.cc pada 22 Ogos lalu yang berharap rakyat tidak memberi mandat kepada Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) dalam pilihan raya akan datang. Dr Mahathir menulis, "better the devil you know than the angel you don't" yang membawa maksud "lebih baik syaitan yang anda kenali daripada malaikat yang anda tidak kenali". "Tiada istilah atau ayat di dalam al Quran yang menjelaskan begitu", katanya. Dr Haron seterusnya berkata, kenyataan Dr Mahathir itu ternyata memakan diri sendiri dan Umno-BN kerana umum terutamanya umat Islam mengetahui syaitan itu adalah makhluk Allah yang paling kejam dan derhaka. Sebagai bekas pemimpin tertinggi negara dan pernah mengetuai Umno-BN untuk tempoh yang lama, tambahnya, adalah amat tidak wajar Dr Mahathir membuat kenyataan sedemikian rupa dengan melabelkan sesuatu pihak atau pertubuhan dengan nama seburuk itu. ****************************************** Learn English Today English Idioms & Idiomatic Expressions Idioms are words, phrases or expressions which are commonly used in everyday conversation by native speakers of English. They are often metaphorical and make the language more colourful. http://www.learn-english-today.com/idioms/idioms_proverbs.html ********************************************** How many of you who went to a Malay-medium, Chinese or Tamil schools learned English? And did they teach you idioms or expressions in your English language class? Let me give you some examples of idioms: Better the devil you know. Letting the cat out of the bag. Barking up the wrong tree. Adding fuel to the flames. Bite the hand that feeds you. Breathe down your neck. Build bridges. Burn your bridges. Burn the candle at both ends. Bury your head in the sand. Bury the hatchet. The carrot and the stick. Clipping someone's wings. Cramp someone's style. Cross the Rubicon. Dig one's own grave. Drag your feet. Eat dirt. Eat out of house and home. Err on the side of caution. Pardon my French. Fall over backwards. Fiddling while Rome burns. Follow one's nose. Follow in someone's footsteps.
Those are actually just some of so, so many 'colourful' sayings in the English language. And I just love these sayings and use them all the time, especially when I talk -- though not so much when I write because many readers do not understand English well enough to even detect sarcasm even when it bites them in the arse (another idiom). When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad first came out with his 'better the devil you know than an angel you don't know' idiom, every man and his dog (another idiom) jumped onto the bandwagon (yet another idiom) to whack the daylight out of him (I think this is an idiom also). Actually, 'better the devil you know' is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'. That is the correct English version. In Malaysia, however, especially amongst the Chinese, they say 'better the devil you know than the angel you don't know'. I learned the 'power' of this idiom back in 1999. That was soon after the birth of the Reformasi Movement and not long after the 10th General Election of 29th November 1999. The Malays voted opposition while the Chinese voted Barisan Nasional. Even those who hated Barisan Nasional and supported the opposition voted for the ruling party. I was puzzled. I asked my Chinese friends: why support the opposition and yet vote government? And these Chinese told me: "Barisan Nasional may be the devil, but better we vote for the devil we know than the angel we don't know. We know Barisan Nasional and we know how to handle them. We don't know the opposition and we are not sure what they will be like if they came to power." It was then when reality hit me. The Chinese, as my Chinese friends kept reminding me, are pragmatic people. They are not emotional like the Malays. So they use their head and not their heart to vote. And they will work with the 'devil' rather than the 'angel' if the 'devil' is a known factor and the 'angel' is an unknown factor. In other words, stick with what you know even if the alternative may be better because there are uncertainties with the alternative. Not many years later, Dr Mahathir said the same thing when he was interviewed soon after the retired in 2003. Dr Mahathir was asked about what he would consider as his greatest regret in his 22 years as Prime Minister and he replied: my greatest regret is I failed to change the Malays. And he lamented: the Malays are too emotional and too feudalistic. Why can't the Malays be more pragmatic like the Chinese? Dr Mahathir was, of course, referring to the 1999 General Election where the Malays voted opposition while the Chinese voted for 'the devil they knew', which was Barisan Nasional. Last week, when Dr Mahathir made that quip, many Malaysians jumped and said that Dr Mahathir admitted that Barisan Nasional is a devil while the opposition is an angel. I was so tempted to write this article but I knew that most readers would interpret this as a show of support for Dr Mahathir. So I refrained from writing about it. Actually, this is not a show of support for Dr Mahathir but a show of opposition to stupidity. I am opposing stupidity, not supporting Dr Mahathir. But stupid people will view it as my support for Dr Mahathir rather than my opposition to stupidity. Then the renowned cleric, Datuk Dr Haron Din, started quoting the Qur'an (read the news item above) and tells us that what Dr Mahathir said is not in the Qur'an. Then I thought I had better say something before people start whacking Islam, the Qur'an, Prophet Muhammad, etc., and bring ridicule to the religion. Of course it is not in the Qur'an. Dr Mahathir was not quoting the Qur'an. Dr Mahathir was quoting an English idiom, which has been 'Malaysianised' from 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't' to 'better the devil you know than the angel you don't'. Must we keep arguing Islam and quote the Qur'an for every issue? General elections are also not in the Qur'an. Choosing governments through the ballot box is also not in the Qur'an. Getting 222 Members of Parliament to formulate laws is not in the Qur'an either. There are millions of things not in the Qur'an -- such as detention without trial, hanging people who traffic in drugs, jailing people who drive dangerously and kill someone walking beside the road, and so on. Bank accounts are not in the Qur'an. Paying your workers monthly salaries is not in the Qur'an. Paying your workers' salary by cheque is not in the Qur'an. Stocks and shares, Amanah Saham included, are not in the Qur'an. Driving licences are not in the Qur'an. Business licences are not in the Qur'an. Signboard permits are not in the Qur'an. Police permits for rallies are not in the Qur'an. Gun licences are not in the Qur'an. If we follow the Qur'an, then you must pay your workers at the end of each and every working day in gold or silver (not with 'worthless' paper), and we can drive and own a gun without the need of licences. We can also carry bows-and-arrows, spears, swords and knives when we leave the house. The Qur'an does not allow the government to arrest us for carrying dangerous weapons in public. Bersih is not in the Qur'an. ABU is not in the Qur'an. Islamic parties are not in the Qur'an. Pakatan Rakyat is not in the Qur'an. Election Commissions are not in the Qur'an. Anti-Corruption Commissions are not in the Qur'an. Human Rights Commissions are not in the Qur'an. State governments are not in the Qur'an. Prime Ministers are not in the Qur'an. Members of Parliament are not in the Qur'an. Income tax is not in the Qur'an. Import duty, sales tax and road tax are not in the Qur'an. Insurance and EPF are not in the Qur'an. You name it and most likely it will not be in the Qur'an. Oh, and according to the Qur'an, we can also own slaves. We can either buy these slaves from the market or invade someone's territory and capture them. And slaves are our property so we can have sex with them. That is not zina (illicit sex). Why pick and choose certain items from the Qur'an? If you want to talk about the Qur'an then there will be many things to talk about. And one thing that PAS will need to do is to announce that it will NOT be contesting the coming general election because this is not what the Qur'an says we must do and this is not the way that governments are chosen in Islam. Will Pakatan Rakyat now just be PKR and DAP? At least that will solve the current impasse regarding Hudud. Problem solved. No more PAS in Pakatan Rakyat so no more Hudud. |
| Posted: 25 Aug 2012 06:51 PM PDT
Not even a priest or an imam will 'serve God' if they are not being paid a salary. It's all about money, even those who claim to be serving God. So get off your high horse and stop all this self-righteous bullshit. Every single one of you does things for money. So stop slandering this person and that person as doing things for money. You too are as much money-motivated as the other person you are accusing. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
I can't understand why Malaysia Today's readers are foaming at the mouth and whacking Hudud. Some have even gone beyond just attacking Hudud and have even whacked Muslims and Islam. A police report has already been made against Malaysiakini. Do you also want a police report to be made against Malaysia Today? Most of you may think that Malaysia allows freedom of expression. Well, Malaysia may allow freedom of expression up to a certain extent but that freedom is not absolute. There are limits. And that is why Malaysia has many laws that are aimed at 'ensuring the peace and stability' of the nation, the Sedition Act being one of them. This means you cannot simply say what you like, not even in America or Britain. For example, if you start talking about Muslim terrorists, Jihad and bombs while in a plane you can get into trouble anywhere in the world. You might argue that it is your fundamental right to talk about whatever it is you want to talk about. The police, however, will not agree with you as they drag you away in handcuffs. Try it if you don't believe me. So perish the thought regarding absolute freedom of expression. It does not exist. There are boundaries and you must navigate within these boundaries. I, for one, can tell you that this is absolutely true. I, too, have learned that you cannot say everything that is on your mind. There are some things you can say and there are many things you cannot say. And if you violate this rule you will get vilified like hell. I am speaking from experience here. Look at what happened to Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim. His party expressed support for the Bersih 3.0 rally while he said that although he is for clean elections he does not feel that breaking the law is the way to send the message to the government. And for saying that he was whacked kaw-kaw until he felt so hurt he left the party. I suppose anyone who is called foul names would feel the way he felt. I mean people do have feelings, even Pakatan Rakyat leaders. In the first place, Tunku Aziz should not have joined a political party. He is not a politician, period. And he should have realised that once you join a political party you must toe the party line. You cannot do what the people would view as breaking ranks. They will kill you, figure of speech, of course. And once you join a political party and then resign, you will be accused of being bought off, of selling out, and all sort of foul things. It is better you had not joined in the first place. Then you can say what you like. Once you join a political party you need to sacrifice certain freedoms for the sake of party unity. Even when you talk in closed-door meetings or unofficial meetings you need to watch what you say. In politics everyone is an enemy, even the person sitting next to you in the meeting. And what you say will be leaked to embarrass you. And the Penang PKR chief, Datuk Dr Mansor Othman, has found out the hard way what damage these leaks can do. Of course, Dr Mansor has denied saying what he is alleged to have said. The minutes, though, appear to prove otherwise. But minutes can be forged. After all, only those who attended the meeting would know. No doubt, none of the others who attended that meeting have come forward to reveal that they had attended the meeting and that the minutes had been forged and that no such thing was ever said in the meeting. Nevertheless, whether the people believe that denial is another thing. After all, politicians deny allegations all the time. Clinton denied. Nixon denied. And in the end it was proven that these denials were all lies. In fact, Najib Tun Razak has also denied the allegations against him but we all don't believe his denials -- am I not correct? The golden rule in politics is when cornered deny or say 'no comment'. Of course, most people are of the opinion that when politicians deny it then it must be true and when they say 'no comment' that means they are admitting the allegation. But the most important thing is no one can prove it. And this is what matters in the end. Can you prove the allegation? What you need to do, before they even deny it or say 'no comment', is to challenge them to prove that the allegation is false. Under normal circumstances one is assumed innocent until proven guilty. But if you want to corner a politician you twist it the other way. You ask them to prove that the allegation is false. That is actually quite impossible to do. Anwar was convicted and sentenced to a total of 15 years jail because he could not prove his innocence. The Federal Court later overturned that conviction on grounds that the Prosecution failed to prove his guilt. Nevertheless, Anwar had already served six years of the 15 years before he saw freedom. Thus, sometimes, the guilty until proven innocent rule does work in certain cases. New laws are being introduced in Malaysia where you will need to prove you are innocent or else you are presumed guilty. We had 52 years of the Internal Security Act where an estimated 10,000 people had been detained without trial on that same assumption -- guilty until proven innocent. They detain you first and then later you need to convince them that you deserve to be released. It is impossible to prove you deserve to be released when your detention is on the basis that one man, the Minister, believes you are a threat to national security. I mean how do you prove a belief wrong? You have a belief, and that belief is I am a threat to national security. How do I prove this belief wrong? How do I prove any of your beliefs wrong? You believe that Hudud is God's law and is mandatory. You believe that the Qur'an came directly from God and is God's word. You believe the Bible is the Holy Book of God (in fact, you swear an oath on the Bible although it may have been printed by a printer in Jalan Chan Sow Lin). You believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified and died for our sins. How do I prove all these beliefs wrong? So, I can't prove any of your beliefs wrong, even the belief that I am a threat to national security. And that means I will remain under detention without trial until your beliefs change and you now believe that I have reformed and have turned over a new leaf and am no longer a threat to national security. Such are beliefs. And beliefs are impossible to prove wrong. If you had to prove your belief right, that would be another thing altogether. To prove your belief right you will need evidence, which you may or may not have. But for me to prove your belief wrong is a non-starter never mind what that belief may be. Beliefs do not require evidence. Hence you can believe something even if there is no evidence. And for me to prove your belief wrong when your belief is void of evidence would mean I would not have the evidence to prove your belief wrong. Can you see how it works? Many friends have been in touch with me to ask me to clear the air on what people are saying about me. These friends tell me that people believe I am this or I am that or I have done this or I have done that. But that is just it. This is what people believe. How do I prove this belief to be false? Most of those people who believe these things about me also believe in God and believe in a religion. Is there any basis for these beliefs? Is there any evidence to support these beliefs? Can they prove that their beliefs are facts and not myths? Of course they can't. They just believe it, that's all. There is no basis for these beliefs. They heard stories and they believe these stories. These are all stories without evidence. Then they support these stories and justify their beliefs by showing us a Holy Book, which they said came from God but was printed by a printer in Jalan Chan Sow Lin who himself does not believe in God and is printing this 'Holy Book' just to make money from the printing contract Thus this is the mindset of these types of people. They are susceptible to believing things that cannot be proven. And these same people also believe certain things about me. So how do we talk to such people when they are already prone to believing things that they imagine to be true even when it cannot be proven true? Can you see the futility in trying to turn these people? It is as difficult as trying to convince a Catholic that Prophet Muhammad is a Prophet of God or trying to convince Muslims that Jesus is the Son of God -- or trying to convince readers of Malaysia Today that Hudud is God's command and is mandatory for all Malaysians. The best would be to just let people believe what they want to believe. Most of these people believe that they are sincere and noble while all the rest are scumbags anyway. Only they are true. All others are false. Look at the party hopping issue as one example. Most believe that it is wrong for people to leave their party to join the other side. But it is not wrong for those from the other side to leave the other side to join their party. If they leave the other side to join their side then it is a sincere and noble gesture. But if they leave their side to join the other side it cannot also be because of a sincere and noble gesture. It can only be because of money and for no other reason. This is the belief. You do things out of sincerity and for noble reasons. Others are not noble or sincere and do things merely for money. You do not do things for money. As I said, this is the belief and they believe that their belief is right. But is it? Their parents sent them to school to receive an education. I have Chinese friends who tell me that education is at the top of the Chinese priority list. Education comes first and everything else comes after. This is what my Chinese friends tell me and since so many seem to tell me the same thing I am inclined to believe it. Then I ask them, why? To the Malays, religion comes first. That is way at the top of the priority list of the Malays. Go ask the Malays and see what they say. But why do Chinese put education and not religion at the top of their priority list? And they tell me it is because you need a good education to be ensured a good future. Only a good education can ensure a good future. And many Malaysians, after they have received that good education, choose to stay overseas to work. They have spent so much money on their education that they need to work overseas because the salary they will earn back in Malaysia would be too low and they will never be able to recover the cost of their education. So people get an education. But they go and get an education not because they seek knowledge. They go and get an education so that they can get a good job that pays good money. Everybody works. And they all work because they want money. Only with money can they buy things and live a good life. They want a house. They want a car. They want to get married. They want power, position, prestige, recognition, and whatnot. And all this requires money. Why do they want all these? Are these not all for selfish reasons? You can go live in a jungle and not starve. There is food everywhere. You can live off the land. You can build a roof over your head from what you find in the jungle. You can use the streams and rivers to wash and bathe. You do not need money. You do not need a job. You do not need to spend so much money getting educated. So, yes, everyone does things for money, even those of you who believe you are sincere and noble. Do you need money? Actually you do not. You don't need money. You just want money. And you want money because you want the good things in life. Are you prepared to resign from your job and go work in one of the African countries for no salary? They will provide you a tent to sleep in and three meals a day. They will also provide you with khaki uniforms. But other than that you will receive no money. Is that not a noble and sincere thing to do? You work for no money but only to serve humankind. You get to eat and sleep in a tent, that's all. Not even a priest or an imam will 'serve God' if they are not being paid a salary. It's all about money, even those who claim to be serving God. So get off your high horse and stop all this self-righteous bullshit. Every single one of you does things for money. So stop slandering this person and that person as doing things for money. You too are as much money-motivated as the other person you are accusing. At least a prostitute is honest about what he or she is. That is more than I can say for you.
|
| When different yardsticks are applied Posted: 24 Aug 2012 07:58 PM PDT
If I were a non-Muslim, I would not get involved in the Hudud debate, knowing that the Malays-Muslims themselves will never come to an agreement on the matter. Once I get involved, then we face the danger of the Malays who oppose Hudud agreeing with those who propose Hudud merely because they want to defend Islam from what they view as an attack by the non-Muslims. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin When we apply two different approaches to a subject, invariably, we will not be able to reconcile the answer we seek. For example, seeking the answer to our existence would not give us the same result when one is guided by theology and the other applies sociology, anthropology, history and archaeology. Why do we exist? Is it by accident or is it by design? And is our existence the ultimate purpose, which will end when we expire, or is it merely a temporary step to a final destination, which will be determined by how we live our life in this world? Such a basic question but not one that can be answered that simply. The answer, invariably, will be determined by what 'logic' we apply. And is the logic we are applying really logical? How, in the first place, can we define logic when different yardsticks are being applied? And when should logic be discarded for a higher discipline, that of the word of God, which is above logic and requires faith? No, it is not a simple puzzle to solve. Even the matter of freedom of expression falls victim to many different viewpoints. Is name-calling and labelling someone Keling Pariah, Mamak Tongkang or Cina Mata Sepet, exceeding the boundaries of freedom of expression and falls within the classification of racial slurs or is this what freedom of expression is all about? Try calling a British of Pakistani origin a Paki here in Britain and see what will happen to you. Is not a British a Brit and an Australian an Aussie and an American a Yank? So what's wrong with a Pakistani being called a Paki? It is not that a Pakistani is not a Paki but the fact that it has been 'agreed', by whom I do not know, that the word Paki is a racial slur. And it is not just that society accepts the word Paki as a racial slur. It is also how you say it -- the tone of your voice and the look on your face. A Malay is certainly a Melayu, there is no denying that. But it is how you use the word Melayu that counts. Using the 'correct' tone of voice and with the 'right' look on your face, the word Melayu can be turned into an insult. So how do we resolve the matter of Hudud, the punishment for crimes under the Islamic laws known as the Sharia? Before that, can this matter even be resolved in the first place? Well, not if we apply two different yardsticks in arguing the case for or against Hudud. No issue can be resolved when two different yardsticks are applied and both are considered logical to the proponents as well as the opponents of Hudud. A Pakistani is a Paki to a non-Pakistani but an insult to a Pakistani. Both are right. Yet both can never come to an agreement as to whether it was meant as an insult or not. Maybe it was a statement of fact. Maybe it was an insult. The only way to avoid the crosswire would be to call a Pakistani a Brit and leave it at that. After all, Britons no longer exist anyway. Every Brit is a son or daughter of an immigrant. The only thing is did they migrate to Britain 100 B.C. or 2,000 years after that? Invariably, every Brit, if the roots are traced, came from somewhere outside Britain. That is the reality of the whole thing. At best, they can claim some British blood but can never lay claim to a thoroughbred Brit. Hence, the Pakistani is as British as the Royal Family or the Prime Minister of Great Britain. When would we consider the cut-off date? If the year 100 were the cut-off date then the Italians would be Brits. If 300 were the cut-off date then the Scandinavians would be Brits. If 500 were the cut-off date then the Germans would be Brits. If 1100 were the cut-off date then the French would be Brits. If 1990 were the cut-off date then those from the Indian subcontinent would be Brits. If there is no cut-off date then everyone is a Brit. There are no Pakistanis in Britain, and hence no Pakis as well. See how simple it is in Britain. Britain never saw independence because it never lost its independence. Britain was conquered by one power after another over more than 2,000 years and the conquerors became Brits, even when they spoke French and not a word of English. So everyone in Britain is a Brit and there are no pendatangs. If there are pendatangs, then every single person in Britain is a pendatang. It is as simple as that. But in Malaysia it is more complicating. Malaysia never existed until 1963. From 1957 it existed as Malaya. Before that there was no Malaya. The British created Malaya. And in creating Malaya they also created Malays, who also never existed until the British created them. And the British declared that Malaya belonged to the Malays and everyone else is an immigrant. But what is the cut-off date? The cut-off date is not clear. If the cut-off date were 1700 then the entire Selangor Royal Family would be pendatang. If the cut-off date were 31st August 1957 then only those born outside the country after that date would be pendatangs. Those born outside Malaya before 31st August 1957 and those born in the country after 31st August 1957 would be Malaysians. Nevertheless, the British had decided that Malaya would be given independence on 31st August 1957 and with independence we would receive a written Constitution, something that the British themselves do not have. And in this written Constitution it would be stated plus implied that the Malays own the land. And to reinforce this ownership, Islam would be the religion of the land, Malay would be the official language, and Malays would be accorded certain privileges. This was the agreement, whether stated or implied. And it was an agreement that all the races in Peninsular Malaysia agreed to adopt. It was not unilateral. It was bilateral. Was this a mistake, especially on the part of the Chinese and the Indians? On hindsight it is always easy to talk. Everyone is an expert on hindsight. It is foresight that matters. Did the Chinese and Indians not have the foresight to see that an open-ended agreement with no expiry date would be binding to future generations of Chinese and Indians who would still be regarded as Chinese and Indians and 'secondary' Malayans? And this is why we are currently facing a problem regarding Hudud. To Malaysians who are not Muslims, Hudud is viewed as a legal matter. It involves the punishment meted out for certain crimes. Hence Hudud needs to be discussed under the ambit of the legal system. They are, of course, correct. To Muslims, however, Hudud is not about the law. It is about what God has commanded. And God's command is beyond discussion. It is about acceptance without argument. To reject God's command is like the Catholics rejecting the Trinity or the Jews rejecting the Ten Commandments. It is a matter that cannot be compromised. They are, of course, also correct -- at least as far as each religious faith is concerned. So both are correct, no one is wrong. So how do we resolve a situation where both are correct and no one is wrong but the 'correctness' of their views places them at odds? As long as the Muslims in Malaysia believe that Islam is the religion of the land and hence whatever is mandatory in Islam becomes mandatory for the whole country then this is not a matter that will see a solution. All other religions will be allowed, but Islam is the religion of the land, not the other religions. The Malays are masters of the land. Non-Malays will be allowed a place under the Malaysian sun but will be secondary to the Malays. This is what the British intended for independent Malaya. And the British made sure that this intention was clearly stated in a written Constitution. Basically, we are faced with a belief system here, the belief that the Malays are the masters of the land and Islam is the religion of the land. And belief systems are not easy to eradicate. Can we convince the Christians that Jesus Christ was a mere man and not divine or the Son of God, hence the Trinity does not exist? Can we convince the Muslims that the Qur'an was not the word of God because it was compiled by a 'committee' years after the death of the Prophet and 'strengthened' by the Hadith, which was a creation of 'spin-doctors'? I fear that would be an impossible task. Both the Christians as well as the Muslims would never change their belief system just because you say so. Belief systems are carved in stone. And the belief that the Malays are masters of the land and Islam is the religion of the land is not a belief system that the Malays or Muslims will readily reject. So what do we do about Hudud? What can we do about it? As long as the Malays believe that the Qur'an is God's word and that Hudud is God's command and that Islam is the religion of the land there is nothing we can do about it. Can we resist or oppose Hudud? Well, can we resist or oppose the law that forbids Muslims from leaving Islam to become Christians, Hindus or Buddhists? The only 'good' thing about the Hudud issue -- if you were the eternal optimist who always tries to see good in everything, like the 'blessing in disguise' thing -- is that Hudud has been reduced to a political issue. Hence, when it becomes a political issue, one side will oppose when the other side proposes. And this would mean that even amongst the Muslims the Hudud issue would never be resolved. If I were a non-Muslim, I would not get involved in the Hudud debate, knowing that the Malays-Muslims themselves will never come to an agreement on the matter. Once I get involved, then we face the danger of the Malays who oppose Hudud agreeing with those who propose Hudud merely because they want to defend Islam from what they view as an attack by the non-Muslims. Let me put it another way. When the Chinese are of the opinion that Chinese education is 'under attack', even the MCA and DAP people can sit at the same table under the umbrella of Chinese education to hammer out an issue of common interest. And this is what can happen when Hudud is viewed as 'under attack' -- the Malays will share a common platform in the interest of 'mempertahankan kedaulatan Islam' (in defence of the sanctity of Islam). So be careful with what you say. Calling a Pakistani a Paki may be kosher to you. The Pakistani, however, may view it as an insult and you can go to jail in Britain if you pass racial slurs. In that same spirit, labelling Hudud as barbaric and those who propagate it as stupid is certainly your right under freedom of expression. To the Muslim, however, that is an insult to God and freedom of expression does not include insulting God. So what do we do then? Do we just shut up and accept the fact that we must lose certain freedom of expression? Or do we speak our mind whatever the consequences in the interest of freedom of expression? Honestly, I really do not know. When two different sets of values are applied I am at a loss. My solution would be to just let the two sides argue and we see where the cards fall. Most likely they will continue to argue into the next generation without any resolution. In that case nothing will happen so we do not need to address anything. Is this a solution? Maybe not! It is more like ignoring it and hoping it will go away. But that is how I sometimes handle the common cold and it does go away. Then, sometimes it may become pneumonia, who knows? But next month I will be 62 and I am still alive. So maybe I have not come out the worst for ignoring the common cold and just allowing it to run its course after all. But, yes, I know, we all want to speak and say something. We do not want to allow the 'other side' to speak unchallenged. So we speak even when what we say is not going to achieve anything. And we will all scream and oppose or scream and defend Hudud when we know nothing is going to happen in the end. And we will find out that loose lips sink ships. But never mind if the ship sinks as long as we can talk while it sinks. Such is the folly of mankind. And aren't wars fought in defence of national pride and dignity when all that is merely another word for ego? And who am I to take away your right of free speech, never mind what is being said will see no light at the end of the tunnel? That, in the end, is what will prevail. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
