Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Christians are hurting in the religious divide -- STAR
- Malayan-based parties too greedy to wallop state seats
- DAP: Talibans without turbans
- The meaning of God and the freedom of religion
- Zairil is an elected CEC member in DAP: Is this a mishap of miscalculation or calculated ...
- Surendran – a man whose facts do not figure
| Christians are hurting in the religious divide -- STAR Posted: 05 Jan 2013 10:19 AM PST
Leaders involved in the debates on religion in Malaysia should stop behaving as if the Christians have no feelings and no rights as Malaysians, said State Reform Party (STAR) here. Daniel John Jambun In a statement, STAR Deputy Chairman, Daniel John Jambun said it's high time Christians came forward and assert their rights as Malaysians in matters concerning their faith. "It is ridiculous that many non-Christian leaders are talking about various religious issues as if the Christians are emotionally dead about matters affecting their religious rights," Jambun said. "There is longstanding assumption among politicians at the national level that no matter what you say about the Christians, they wouldn't dare respond to assert their rights. It's high time this is stopped." He said it is a clear case of condescending, taking for granted and outright bullying for Muslim leaders to oppose the use of "Allah," to prohibit or control the distribution of the Indonesian Alkitab, to arrest non-Muslims in khlawat cases, and to proclaims fatwahs (decrees) affecting the non-Muslims. "Now the situation is reaching a critical level with PAS insisting on the implementation of hudud in the whole of the country and to turnMalaysia into a theocracy," Jambun asserted. "The government should make a strong stance and treat these inflammatory religious proclamations as seditious and threat to public peace and national harmony. "Initially, hudud was just for Kelantan and there was assurance it wouldn't affect non-Muslims. But we all know that the implementation of hudud will defitnitely affect all Malaysians because as a people, we interact and there will be circumstances in which non-Muslims will be entangled into the draconian syariah law. "The Muslims and non-Muslims people of Sabah who have lived in harmony before PAS' came into the picture, are now being rattled by religious issues raised by PAS and Perkasa. The fact that the people of Sabah had been assured of religious freedom in Malaysia as documented by the Keningau Oath Stone, is now meaningless. The Christians in Sabah here now feel they are being harassed and denied their rights." Jambun assured he has no intention to interfere in Islamic affairs, but just to express the feeling of numerous people who have called him to voice out their grievance over the "spiritual colonialization" by PAS and the bullying of Christians by some insensitive political leaders. He said he respects everyone's rights to their beliefs and religious practices but such respect and rights should also be accorded to Christians as well.
|
| Malayan-based parties too greedy to wallop state seats Posted: 04 Jan 2013 04:57 PM PST
Isn't the 165 parliamentary seats (out of 222) lumped together in the whole of Malaya good enough for PKR and PR to contest that they must contest Sabah's mere 25 and Sarawak's 31 parliamentary seats? Daniel John Jambun It disturbs us in Star when certain opposition leaders here keep on mentioning in their speeches that STAR is splittng the opposition votes and in the process help return Barisan Nasional in the coming general election. But what short of safeguards Sabah and Sarawak can have if even our small number of seats are being taken and contested by parties from outside East Malaysia? It is obvious that these Sabahans reps would listen to their leaders who are from Peninsular. Just look at UMNO reps from Sabah.
|
| Posted: 04 Jan 2013 04:17 PM PST
Hear Hannah Yeoh extolling the religious and ethical virtues of the DAP vis-à-vis the "morally bankrupt and low-class" BN/Umno. Read the unending volley of sneering condemnations by Tony Pua, the self proclaimed economic expert, on the inferiority of Malaysia's mainly Malay Muslim civil servants, government leaders, police, military, economic performance, weapon systems, universities and education system. FMT LETTER: From Calvin Sankaran, via e-mail In his book, 'The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters', Professor BR Myers challenges the prevailing conventional wisdom amongst the academia that the Hermit Kingdom is a hard-line Stalinist communist state was founded on twin principles of Marxism and Confucianism. In his brilliantly-written book, Myers observes that most "academics, think-tank analysts and other Pyongyang watchers have neglected to study the worldview of the military-first regime and instead choose to make sense of Juche Thought, a sham doctrine with no bearing on Pyongyang's policy-making." Prof Myers' central theme is that North Korea's guiding ideology is a race-based nationalism derived from Japanese fascism, rather than any form of Communism. He summarises core principle of this ideology as follows: The Korean people are too pure blooded, and therefore too virtuous, to survive in this evil world without a great parental leader. As I read Professor Myer's book, a staggering revelation dawned on me – of the uncanny parallels between this bellicose pariah state and another race-first organisation that is closer to home – the DAP. The similarities between North Korea and DAP are numerous and encompass the entire spectrum of politics – ideology, world-view, policies, party propaganda tactics, governance and even leadership style. Both of these entities are dynastical, father and son dictatorships despite their professed adherence to social democratic ideology. In reality neither is even remotely socialist nor democratic despite the regularly held show elections and lofty sloganeering. Just like Kim Dynasty up North, the Lim Dynasty rules DAP with an iron fist. If the Korean spin doctors mythologise the Kim family and accord them with superhuman powers, the DAP mythmakers similarly elevate the Lims to tokongs and demigods. Party leaders are relentlessly portrayed as intellectual Titans and of possessing Saint-like morality while their opponents are derided as bottom-feeding pond scum. Listen to the endless triumphalism and chest-thumping of Lim Guan Eng on his and his party's managerial and moral superiority in ruling Penang over the "racist, inept, corrupt and immoral" BN/Umno. Hear Hannah Yeoh extolling the religious and ethical virtues of the DAP vis-à-vis the "morally bankrupt and low-class" BN/Umno. Read the unending volley of sneering condemnations by Tony Pua, the self proclaimed economic expert, on the inferiority of Malaysia's mainly Malay Muslim civil servants, government leaders, police, military, economic performance, weapon systems, universities and education system. Racism forms the central tenet of DAP's doctrine and electoral vote-winning strategy. Taking a leaf out of the Koreans' playbook, the party positions itself as the courageous defender of Chinese Malaysians against the marauding mobs of Malay Muslims who are intent upon seizing their wealth and brutally snatch their cultural and language rights. Like their Kimchi-loving Korean comrades, DAP's racist message and intentions have been carefully camouflaged and couched in noble-sounding, lofty, jazzed-up and ultimately empty slogans like "Malaysian Malaysia", "Middle Malaysia" and "Bangsa Malaysia". Over the last several decades the party has been engaging in a ceaseless racial agitprop to tear the Malaysian social fabric apart by using highly emotive ethnic issues such as the NEP, the quota system, vernacular education, etc. Lately the party has ventured into newer territories and has taken on an expanded role – as the vanguard-in-chief of the Christian Talibans – an increasingly vocal, assertive and powerful group with its sacred epicenter located in Subang Jaya.
|
| The meaning of God and the freedom of religion Posted: 04 Jan 2013 11:37 AM PST
If a faith can be destroyed, it must be a faith in lies. A faith that is really a faith in truth is never afraid of being destroyed; it cannot because truth cannot be destroyed. Only lies are afraid of being broken, only lies need protection. Truth in itself is self-evident. So if you have some faith which is just a lie, it makes you secure. freedom The meaning of God and the existence of God are issues of great importance in relation to the freedom of religion. For this simply discussion, it might be better to come to some understanding as to what we understand by the term "God" without applying etymology. Generally speaking we have: First meaning, according to Rev. Prof. Frederick Copleston: presume to mean – provisionally at least - a supreme personal being – distinct from the world and creator of the world, such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. The Christian God is a personal God. This does not mean that God is a human being, but that God has "personality" and the capability of both relationships with other personal beings. In his debate with Father Copleston, Bertrand Russell accepted this definition although his position is that of agnosticism. The keyword is "personal being". Second meaning, according to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or Osho: God is not a person, God is the totality of all that is. The whole creative energy of existence is God. God is not the creator; rather, God is the creative force, the very creation itself. For the New Age Movement (NAM), the second meaning of God is more appropriate. New Agers practice a non-judgmental attitude toward error and falsehood. They believe that everyone's path is their own choosing and that it is all from God. So they could never say someone or something was wrong. Nature is indifferent to our values, and can only be understood by ignoring our notions of good and bad. Thus it is appropriate to assume that God is impersonal. The keyword is "creative force". Third meaning, when Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from Allah Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which reads: "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone". Is Allah personal or impersonal in Islam? Islamic description of Allah is unknowable and above comprehension, only adjectival words are allowed. It is considered blasphemous to "presume" that one can know Allah intimately or claim any sort of close, personal fellowship with him, thus it is safe to assume that Allah is impersonal. The keyword is "unknowable". Four questions are posed based on the principle of four-cornered negation in Indian Philosophy: Is God personal? Is God impersonal? Is God both personal and impersonal? Is God neither personal nor impersonal? Sanjaya (6th. B. C.), the best known sceptic during his time would not only not say a definite "Yes" to any question, but would also not give a definite "No". That is God cannot be directly expressed, but only as the negation of negation. In any religion, God cannot be both personal and impersonal because the former will be first and foremost, in order for God to be impersonal, God must be personal first. This is an a posteriori justification and it is very difficult to imagine God's eternalness if impersonal God came first. For God, the transition from impersonal to personal is meaningless, for example, humans are created from earth, humans are personal being but earth is not. Either personal God or impersonal God had created humans from earth. Humans are not God, but it is meaningful for personified humans to create impersonal objects such as cars, ships, computers etc. Then who created God? We leave this question as it leads to an infinite regression. -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The zero in the arithmetical series of numbers above is an indeterminate quantity and to say minus zero or plus zero makes no difference, but it is still a number. If it is not positive or negative, we cannot say it is both positive and negative because positive and negative are opposite and cannot be attributed to the same number. So if God is neither personal nor impersonal, the metaphysical conception of emptiness or nihilism came into play and thus God does not exist or God could possibly had been invented by humans. The way science inquires and progresses is exactly the way of man's inner search to find the truth and becomes a lab unto himself. The Buddha could not find any God within himself or outside after searching to the very core of his being, thus Buddhists do not believe in God, instead they talk about Nirvana. Buddha's religion is based in an inner benediction, in an inner blessing – it has nothing to do with fear, especially of God. Buddha says that it is not because of fear that should you be moral, but because of understanding. The coming of a super mind, a perfect being or messiah who will lead us into a long awaited era of universal peace, love and joy is being anticipated by all religion - the Hindu Avatar, the Al Mahdi of the Muslims, the Jewish Messiah, the Buddhist Maitreya, or the second coming of Christ. Are they all point to the same being that is soon to come or are they different? So which God, revelation or teaching is true, real or right? The most contentious issue is the formation of theocratic state which put the question of whether God is personal, impersonal or not existing untenable. With the formation and implementation of theocratic state by force, some adherents might reject religious pluralism which claims that all religions are equally true and equally good. They also accept that only their religion possesses the perfect and complete revelation. This is the recipe for invitation to war when each side claimed to have the mandate from God and why freedom of religion is so important as Bertrand Russell asserts: "When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force." Many unaltered verses in the Qu'ran did mention about fighting the infidels. The Qur'an certainly proclaims that when the time is appropriate, Muslims must use force or perhaps other subtle ways to convert the unbelievers to Islam and to punish or kill anyone who leaves Islam. According to the principle of abrogation, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" is being abrogated by the later texts "Verses of the sword" to compel conversion of the infidel by armed violence which historically Islam's preferred method. At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity and Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam. Realistical, authentical or ethical questions aside, the above paragraph is only comprehensible if God is personal, God's command is His personal command and not His will, intention or desire. Humans must believe that they are able to fly before working on building an aeroplane. A human who only will could never take to the sky or change the world. The emphasis is on why we want to believe before doing the correct things. Similarly, only personal God has the prerogative to choose a different mode to reveal the Qu'ran through Jibril as compared to how the Torah is revealed to Moses and the Bible by Jesus. Thus, it is also understandable and sensible when Pope Urban II orders the first Crusade to take back Christian lands from Muslim invaders since he is the representative of personal God on earth. The essence of worship in Islam is the feeling of gratitude towards Allah. The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called a kafir or an infidel, which means one who denies the truth and also one who is ungrateful. This essence of worship is comprehensible only if God is personal and knowable as He is able to grant us our wishes, as only personal God can wills before any yields, otherwise it is similar to the worshiping the water, rock or tree believed to contain unknowable divine character of the natural world as practiced in paganism. Let's compare God to gravitational force to distinguish personal and impersonal God. Impersonal God can never grant us our wishes. Take for example, a man who worships gravitational force a million times, he will still die a million times if he jumped a million times from a hundred storey building without a parachute; unless a personal God commanded some angels to save him from crashing. So men do not pray and will not be grateful to all these existing forces but they have to do some study to understand them. These existing forces will not reveal its formula or theories to us by worshiping them but it is for us to use scientific approach and experiments to realize them. But Islamic understanding is more on "textual and orthodox consensus" rather than philosophical construct as we see in the case of the short term success of the Mu'tazilite theology based on reason and rational thought. The adherents of the Mu'tazilite school are best known for their assertion that because of the perfect unity and eternal nature of Allah, the Qu'ran must therefore had been created, as it could not be co-eternal with God. This created two possibilities, on the one hand, distinguishing the Divine attributes (living, powerful, generous, speech) from the Divine essence (God's oneness) with the former subordinate to the latter and on the other end, those who were against the Mu'tazilite insisted that the attributes of God were real beings that eternally subsist in God. Ahmad ibn Hanbal is remembered as the exemplary defender of hadith, opposed the metaphorical interpretation of the Qu'ran and Sunna as they should be accepted as reality without engaging in any hermeneutical extension. Eschatological images (punishment in hell) are not metaphorical but real and anthropomorphic language (God's throne, hands, eyes) is simply to be accepted, "without asking how." In the end the traditional-minded ulama emerged stronger and independent than ever and the Caliph Mutawwakil reversed course and embraced the viewpoint of the more traditional religious scholars. One faith and works problem is as such: Muslims should not but do perform the outward works identified with Islam without the inner conviction of faith, but was it also possible to have faith apart from works? The Mu'tazilites compromised and came close to the eventual "orthodox" solution to the problem of faith and works that arises. Religion that affects people at three intertwined levels – personal, social and political - should be separated because the power of religion based political supremacy and the eventual risk of corruption over people's personal and social life had brought untold suffering throughout the history of mankind. Some religious people are motivated by their political interests first and find a religious rationale to suit the occasion; this is a danger to those who would like to live peacefully in a pluralistic world. Osho, who claims to teach religiousness and agrees that religion and politics should remain separate, has this to say about God, truth and spirituality: The purpose of life is life itself. Life cannot be understood. You can live it – that is the only understanding there. If you understand what life is, you will never ask what God is. When I say this table exist, it is meaningful because the table can go out of existence: we can destroy it. But when I say God exists it is meaningless, because God cannot go out of existence and cannot be destroyed. Existence is meaningful only if nonexistence is possible. If nonexistence is impossible, existence is meaningless. God is beyond both: matter and mind. You cannot know God unless you become God himself. If I say "I can know God without becoming God," you are saying something impossible. Because of this, Christianity and Mohammedanism both think that to say that you can become God is sacrilegious, profane, irreligious; it doesn't show respect. The Mohammedan attitude about it has been so stubborn that it killed Mansur al-Hallaj and other Sufi mystics because they declared that they were God. Unless you enter him, and become one with him, how can you know him? You can just move around and around him. But whatsoever you come to know is just information that is gathered from without, it is not direct knowledge. Reality cannot be known by the outer senses – the outer senses interpret reality as matter. Reality cannot be known through the inner senses – the inner senses interpret reality as mind. Reality can be known only when you have taken a jump into reality itself, without any mediators; when you have lost your mind and when you have lost your meditation also. The authentic religion does not teach you to worship. The authentic religion teaches you to discover your immortality, to discover the god within you. Death is defeated only by those who are ready to die any moment, to accept death without any reluctance. Truth, by its very nature, cannot be organized. To organized truth, or to kill it, mean the same thing. The first thing an organized establishment do is to kill its own esoteric part, because the esoteric group is always a disturbance, a heresy. A true religion will not require faith from you. A true religion will require experience. It will not ask you to drop your doubt, it will help you to sharpen your doubt so that you can inquire to the very end. The true religion will help you find your truth. Mohammed's truth is Mohammed's truth; it cannot be yours just by becoming a Mohammedan. Neither can the pope, the religious leaders convince anybody that for God's sake you have to kill. Strange … because God has created everybody. Whomsoever you are killings you are killing God's creation. If it is true that god created the world, then there should be no war – it is one family, there should be no nations. All wars are irreligious. Many more people have been killed in the name of religion than in any other name. It has nothing to do with religions, just the ego. Whatsoever is yours has to be the best in the world. Whatsoever is others' cannot be the best, cannot be allowed to be the best in the world. There would be no good and no bad because goodness and badness are human distinctions, mental distinctions. If there were no human beings on earth, would there be any flower that was ugly or any flower that was beautiful? There would only be flowers flowering; the distinction would not be there. Existence exists with no beginning and no end, but with many changes. Religions are against sex because that is the only way to make you unhappy, guilty, afraid. Once you are afraid, you can be manipulated. Remember this fundamental rule: make a person afraid if you want to dominate him. First make him afraid. If he is afraid, you can dominate him. If he is not afraid, why and how can you dominate him? There are two things which make people very much afraid – one is death and the other is sex. Faith is blind in a different sense because it has its own way of seeing. It is not seeing through reason, it is seeing through the heart. Truth cannot be uttered, the moment you utter it, it becomes a lie. Truth cannot be said. The moment you say it, it is almost part of a dream now; no longer truth. Religion can be an opium, so can communism – anything that gives hope for the future, in this world or in another world; anything that helps you to sacrifice your present for something that helps to feed your ego. If a faith can be destroyed, it must be a faith in lies. A faith that is really a faith in truth is never afraid of being destroyed; it cannot because truth cannot be destroyed. Only lies are afraid of being broken, only lies need protection. Truth in itself is self-evident. So if you have some faith which is just a lie, it makes you secure. Prayer does the same thing, and priests do the same thing – they make you more adjusted. Meditation is a science. It is not going to help you in adjustment, it is going to help you in transformation. You cannot seek truth. You can find it, but you cannot seek it. The very seeking is the hindrance. All objects are worldly because "seeking" is the world. So you cannot seek anything non-worldly. The moment you seek, it becomes the world. If you seek God, your God is part of the world. You are the truth just here and now, it is not something to be achieved in the future. A child is pure because there is no mind. And the moment knowledge comes, division enters. You begin to divide between what is good and what is bad. You cannot create order on the world. When you try to create order you create disorder. Religion always divide you into two: the evil and the divine. If someone really follows them, he will come to conclude that the moment you destroy the devil, God is destroyed. Whatsoever you know about "God" is through "tolds" - the parents, the society, the culture. It is your conditioning. And now you have got a concept about God and you are trying to understand that word. "God" is not a word. The word God is not God. The word is simply a word, in itself empty and meaningless. If you really want to know what God is, you will have to drop the word and drop the mind and move into no-mind. Love will bring you closer to it than thinking. If you don't believe in any God, you may not be irreligious, because God is not basic to religion. Non ego is basic to religion. And even if you believe in God, with an egoist mind you are irreligious. With a non egoistic mind there is no need to believe in a God. You fall into the divine automatically. Whenever you are silent, the ego is not. Whenever your mind is restless, the ego is there. That's why we cannot love, because with the ego, love is impossible. Love, meditation, God, they all require one thing – the ego must not be there. Jesus is right in saying that God is love, because both phenomena happen only when the ego is not. If you know love, there is no need to know God – you have known him already. As a result of these "powerful" teachings like the one above by Osho, New Age practices have made their way into almost every area of different culture and religion, and leaders of monotheistic religion are very unhappy. They accused the New Age practices as satanic and quoted religious scriptures to justify their position, such as; in the original lie, Satan questions God's word and authority and claims that through the acquisition of secret or gnostic wisdom, man can be enlightened and can be like God. The most important contentious question/issue is whether man has the freedom and right to choose between Gnosticism (teaching that esoteric or divine knowledge could be gained directly by oneself) or Scripturalism (strict compliance to the literal interpretation of the religious books presided by intermediaries). In Sai Baba's example, there were video evidence that he performed magical tricks rather than miracles. Subsequently, his organized exoteric group would prevent people from bringing video camera into the ashram. In this case, the New Agers position would be a non-judgmental and they see the magic tricks as a technique to draw people towards religiousness. They also view that Prophet Muhammad uses the sword as a technique during his time, if he doesn't, he would probably had been killed by the sword of others. But if the freedom to choose and practice any religion is denied, don't be fooled by the notion that the New Agers would sit quietly, I believe they too can be "corrupted" to become merciless and probably become the most brutal and savage killers. Lest I forgot, this freedom includes the liberty to choose to become an atheist. Before it turns endless, I would like to end my "quoted from various sources" article with questions for my readers to ponder and seek answers: Is Satan personal, impersonal, unknowable or better not to know? If God is Almighty, why didn't He destroy all the Satan once and for all? Did Buddhism influence early Christianity as researchers claimed to have found proof of the existence of manuscripts in India and Tibet that support the belief that Christ was in India during this time in his life? Is it true according to Prof. Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University that Islam does not prevent or kill anyone who leaves the Islamic faith however the killings had been confused with political treason? Is Allah the same as the God of the Bible? From a scholarly Christian perspective, see here http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch3.html why Allah is not the same as the God of the Bible. Why Allah is the God who is to be served and in contrast Jesus is the God who came to serve? How to understand the fact that we only have access to the will of Allah and the revelation is not a revelation of Allah, but the revelation of his will? Why Christianity overemphasizing faith/love and forsaking the law and why Islam integrated both law and faith/love? Is it true that the God of the Bible is love, whereas Allah's primary characteristic is power? Could it be possible that Allah's power leads to fatalism rather than obedience from the security for the believer? Why there is a contrasting fact that the God of the Bible wants to be known in the context of His personal predestination while Allah does not want to be known? Why Jesus will descend in a Buddhist fashion, dressed in yellow robes with his head anointed according to the Hadith? Why not in white or black burqa? Is it true according to Ibn Warraq in his book "Why I am not a Muslim" that the Islamic Allah is the end result of theological evolution and concoction from pagan pre-Islamic religious systems in the Middle east? Is it true according to Ibn Warraq again, there were numerous words of foreign origin in the Qu'ran and the Arabs Arabicized them, for example the word "Koran" itself comes from the Syriac, and Prophet Muhammad evidently got it from Christian sources?
|
| Zairil is an elected CEC member in DAP: Is this a mishap of miscalculation or calculated ... Posted: 03 Jan 2013 05:26 PM PST
K. Fernandez It has now been confirmed that 30-year old Zairil Khir Johari's numbering was switched with Vincent Wu Him Ven. This draws further flak and speculation to two burdening questions whether the elections in DAP totality is fraudulent and if Zairil's new 'election results' is a political manoeuvre. Both seem relevant because Zairil came under fire because of his age and dual appointment as political secretary to Lim Guan Eng and the high paying Penang Economy Institute job that the latter holds. Lim Guan Eng came to his rescue by saying that Zairil Khir Johari has a Masters and that his father was the first Minister of Education in Malaysia. Doubts about his paternal linkages have already come under speculation and his tertiary achievements do not justify Lim Guan Eng's claims. 'I sincerely apologise to all the DAP members and congress delegates for the mistakes made in the tabulation process' said officer for the election Pooi Weng Keong. Zairil Khir Johari recently demanded that the election commission resign because of vote buying, and many are waiting for his statement on DAP's vote counting stint. Rest assured Datuk Ambiga will not seek a Bersih in DAP though the party does not practice clean and fair elections. |
| Surendran – a man whose facts do not figure Posted: 03 Jan 2013 03:38 PM PST
FMT LETTER: From PM Sivalingam, via e-mail PKR Vice-President N Surendran is probably well-versed with the law but is woefully ignorant when it comes to mathematics. His numbers simply do not add up and his facts do not figure. For instance, he has repeatedly claimed that there are 300,000 stateless Indians in the country. He arrived at that figure not by the use of any credible study but by mere unsupported guesswork. When he organised a rally at Putrajaya recently ostensibly to champion the cause of stateless Indians, only a mere 300 showed up, that too with a lot of Indian national who are workers in Malaysia hoping to get Malaysian citizenship. Whatever happened to the remaining 299,700? He clearly failed for good in his attempt to demonise the government when his rally turned out a mega flop, what more when his political mentor and bosses from Pakatan Rakyat, including Anwar Ibrahim, failed to rally behind him. Incidentally, we may not have forgotten that Hindraf's deposed leader P Uthayakumar had once claimed that there were 450,000 stateless Indians. Between Uthayakumar and Surendran, the figure dropped by 150,000. Were they phantom numbers to shore up dwindling numbers of their political supporters? On the other hand, the government under Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak went on record to quash Surendran's claims by producing actual results. They have worked hard done to search for Indians with documentation problems and bring them forward to register and successfully granted citizenship and other documentations to more than 6,500 Indians. The remaining cases received through their MyDaftar campaign are still being processed, and the numbers is a far, far cry from 300,000. Now, having failed to steal the spotlight over the so-called 300,000 stateless Indians, Surendran claims that 49,000 children of stateless persons cannot attend school because they do not have birth certificates. He claims these figures were culled from census data and population statistics. Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin was reported to have said that children without valid personal identification papers could still have access to education as long as they fulfilled the Education Ministry's circular dated March 11, 2009. It states a child without personal documents can register at a government school or a government-aided school if one of his or her parents is a Malaysian citizen. This is in line with Malaysia's compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Children, which states that stateless children have a right to basic education. There is no reason therefore for any child born in Malaysia to be denied education. Will Surendran show the proof that there are 49,000 children who are unable to attend school? Can he bring at least 10% of them to the JPN or to the Ministry of Education and assist them to attend school? In all likelihood, Surendran, being Anwar's parachuted 'Indian' leader in PKR, will sneakily evade this challenge by coming out with lame and pathetic excuses. "I will only show the proof to the Prime Minister", "Whether there are 49,000 stateless children or not, the number is not important, be serious to solve the issue", "Umno and BN must stop its racist policy by denying citizenship to immigrant races" bla bla bla… These are some whining dialogues of Surendran that we are sick and tired of hearing. In effect, today, the issue of lack of documentation among Indians and other races in Malaysia doesn't seem to be a serious issue given that the government is already attending to it more seriously to ensure deserving individuals gets their rightful citizenship. It only seems like people like Surendran are the problem, problem because he has no other issues to fight on, to capitalise on and to fool the people. It is time for Surendran to stop, yes, I repeat, to stop politicising issues on citizenship for his selfish political ambition. Wise people will judge you not based on how frequently you shout about this matter, but how many people you have actually helped solve their woes. So Surendran, stop making use of people for your advantage and get your facts and figures right before you decide on another circus of yours!
|
| 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 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan