Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Let’s get this straight
- Have they been bought?
- Cure the cause, not the symptoms
- Can I know your stand?
- Philosophy as taught by Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- The meaning and role of civil society (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- How con artists work (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- Small things for small minds
- Why Umno Malays are NOT Muslims
- The Third Estate (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
| Posted: 15 Nov 2011 06:34 PM PST Well, there you have it. So don't give me that crap that Islam is not compatible to human rights and then quote the apostasy issue as the example. These are all figments of your imagination and of those Muslims foaming at the mouth because they want to prevent Muslims from leaving Islam. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
As much as I hate talking about religion, unfortunately, I just can't avoid doing so seeing that the future of the opposition coalition rides on Pakatan Rakyat coming to an agreement on matters related to Islam. And one such matter is the Pakatan Rakyat policy on apostasy (whether it is allowed for Muslims and what laws will Pakatan Rakyat formulate in response to this). In two earlier articles (Can I know your stand? and Cure the cause, not the symptoms) I talked about civil society action and human rights issues (such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Some responded by saying that this cannot happen in Malaysia. And the reason it cannot happen, they argue, is because Islam is a hindrance to human rights. Of course, these people are looking at things from only one perspective -- the perspective of apostasy and the belief (not fact) that Islam forbids it and punishes apostates. Not only non-Muslims but also Muslims themselves consider this to be true. Actually, that is a matter of opinion and your opinion does not make it correct. And as much as you may think that your opinion is right, I will profusely disagree with you. First, let us talk about the issue of apostasy. In Islam, apostasy is defined as the rejection of Islam in either words or deeds. According to Islam, you would become an apostate if you convert to another religion, deny the existence of God (become an atheist), reject Muhammad as the prophet, mock God or any of the prophets (meaning: Prophets of the Jews and Christians), idol worship, reject the Shariah (some scholars would disagree with this on grounds that the Shariah is man-made and not from God), or permit behaviour that is forbidden by the Shariah (such as adultery, gambling, drinking, bribery, etc.). The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any punishment for apostasy and scholars differ on its punishment. Punishment ranges from execution (based on the interpretation of certain Hadith -- and note that not all Muslims accept Hadith) to no punishment at all. In medieval times, several Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence ruled that apostasy is punishable by death. Other scholars, however, had different views. People such as Ibrahim al-Nakha'i and Sufyan al-Thawri rejected the death penalty and prescribed indefinite imprisonment until repentance. The Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi also called for different punishments between the non-seditious religious apostasy and that of a seditious and political nature (meaning: high treason). According to Wael Hallaq, apostasy laws are not derived from the Qur'an. In modern times, some Islamic scholars such as Gamal Al-Banna, Taha Jabir Alalwani, and Shabir Ally, opposed the death penalty for apostasy. 'Qur'an-alone' Muslims (what Malays would call the 'Anti-Hadith' group) do not support any punishment whatsoever on grounds that verses from Qur'an advocate free will and no compulsion. So there you have it. To argue that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be applied to Malaysia because Islam does not allow apostasy and puts to death apostates is not true. That is a mere opinion, not a fact, and different scholars have different opinions. The fact that different scholars have different opinions means it is not carved in stone. If it were then there would be no room whatsoever for differences of opinion. For example, 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is carved in stone. So there would be no difference of opinion here. All scholars would be unanimous in their view regarding this issue. Okay, let's move on. Assuming you cannot accept the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights because, as you say, it is a Western or un-Islamic document, and if you insist on an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, we have that too. (Read the full text of the 5 August 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam here). The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990 has 25 Articles as opposed to 30 Articles in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Nevertheless, there are some very interesting Articles that do not hinder the implementation of human rights in Malaysia Of course, the critics can always argue that there are some grey areas or ambiguities in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. These would probably be the parts that say: ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah, in accordance with the tenets of the Shari'ah, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah, etc. Nevertheless, look at it in its entirety and not just look at half a sentence. You will see that if the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is implemented, then many things currently being practiced in Malaysia would now have to come to an end. For example, you cannot prevent someone from marrying because of his/her religion, you cannot detain someone without trial, you have a right to express your opinion (so no sedition or criminal defamation laws), the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar need not be Malay, there must be no Malay-only institutions of higher learning and no one can be denied an education because of his/her race or due to quota restrictions, you can oppose the government if it does something wrong, you cannot spy on what someone is doing in the privacy of his/her home (so no sex spies), there must be no Bumiputra-only shares and property, and much, much more. Some interesting points to note would be: 19 (a). All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled. (So you can criticise the Sultans). 19 (e). A defendant is innocent until his guilt is proven in a fast trial in which he shall be given all the guarantees of defence. (So Anwar Ibrahim would walk a free man). 18 (b). Everyone shall have the right to privacy in the conduct of his private affairs, in his home, among his family, with regard to his property and his relationships. It is not permitted to spy on him, to place him under surveillance or to besmirch his good name. The State shall protect him from arbitrary interference. (So what I do in my bedroom is my business and you can't force your way into my home to spy on me). 10. Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism. (It does not say you cannot leave Islam on your own freewill or that you will be put to death if you do). 9 (b). The seeking of knowledge is an obligation and provision of education is the duty of the society and the State. (So UiTM cannot be a Malay-only institution). 5 (b). The society and the State shall remove all obstacles to marriage and facilitate it, and shall protect the family and safeguard its welfare. (So you can't prevent inter-religious marriages). 3 (b). It is prohibited to cut down trees, to destroy crops or livestock, to destroy the enemy's civilian buildings and installations by shelling, blasting or any other means. (So there goes the indiscriminate logging in East Malaysia). Well, there you have it. So don't give me that crap that Islam is not compatible to human rights and then quote the apostasy issue as the example. These are all figments of your imagination and of those Muslims foaming at the mouth because they want to prevent Muslims from leaving Islam.
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2011 04:48 PM PST In short, it is okay to be a loose cannon if you are from Barisan Nasional. In fact, many people like Barisan Nasional loose cannons. They think that Barisan Nasional loose cannons are cute creatures. But they do not like the Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons. Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons are not cute creatures. They are traitors, turncoats, Trojan horses, etc. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Kinabatangan MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin is raising hell regarding the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) quarter billion Ringgit scandal. He, plus some other Barisan Nasional leaders, have asked for the resignation of Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, in turn, has said that overseas Malaysians should be allowed to exercise their right to vote. This is in contradiction to what other Barisan Nasional Ministers have said about the same matter. Well, Bung Mokhtar and Nazri Aziz are not called loose cannons for nothing. They are amongst the most vocal of the Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament who have in the past triggered uproars in Parliament (go see the videos on Youtube). They would not hesitate to scream at their opponents, in a most un-parliamentary manner may I add, and show a clenched fist in a gesture of challenging their opponents to a fistfight. To put in mildly, these are two of the more outrageous personalities from Barisan Nasional and are probably disliked by both sides of the political divide. I know for a fact that ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad would like to put Nazri Aziz against a wall and shoot him. And the feeling is mutual. Nevertheless, they are both loose cannons in the true sense of the word. And loose cannons are called loose cannons because they tend to shoot their own side as much as the other side. And that is why loose cannons are called loose cannons. They roll all over the ship's deck in a storm and shoot anything that moves, never mind what uniform they are wearing. I, too, am called a loose cannon. Of course, it is the Pakatan Rakyat leaders who call me a loose cannon (the Barisan Nasional leaders call me a liar). That is because I, too, tend to shoot both sides of the political divide. But when I do that they will scream that I have been bought, have sold out, am now in Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's pocket, and so on. In short, it is okay to be a loose cannon if you are from Barisan Nasional. In fact, many people like Barisan Nasional loose cannons. They think that Barisan Nasional loose cannons are cute creatures. But they do not like the Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons. Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons are not cute creatures. They are traitors, turncoats, Trojan horses, etc. Anyway, just to digress a bit, have a look at this, which I picked up from WikiSabah: Sabah Population Breakdown by Race 2010 (http://wikisabah.blogspot.com/2011/11/sabah-population-breakdown-by-race-2010.html) Now, as I have said many times, the key to Putrajaya is in the hands of Sabah and Sarawak. And, going by the above, plus by the results of the recent Sarawak state elections, do you think Pakatan Rakyat has any chance of forming the next federal government? Barisan Nasional does not call Sabah and Sarawak their 'fixed deposit' for nothing. Let's face it, unless Pakatan Rakyat hammers out a formula on how to cooperate, as opposed to compete, with the parties from Sabah and Sarawak, then they can kiss Putrajaya goodbye. I have said this before and I will say it again. PKR, DAP and PAS have a better chance of forming the next federal government if they work with the parties from Sabah and Sarawak rather than compete with them. Okay, I know, they are now going to argue that Pakatan Rakyat (meaning PKR, DAP and PAS) need to contest the seats in Sabah and Sarawak because the politicians from Sabah and Sarawak can't be trusted. If they were allowed to contest the seats and if they win they might sell out and jump over to Barisan Nasional. I take it the people from West Malaysia are saying that everyone from East Malaysia are prostitutes who will sell their own mothers, wives and daughters for the right price. That is why Pakatan Rakyat cannot work with East Malaysian politicians and will instead have to contest the seats themselves. Well, in that case I have nothing more to argue. If that is true then we might as well agree now that Pakatan Rakyat is never going to form the next federal government and that Barisan Nasional is going to rule forever. Maybe this is just what Malaysians deserve. And I have no sympathy for a society that will sell the future of the country for monetary gains. Yes, maybe we need to see Barisan Nasional in power for a while longer. Then, once Malaysia joins the long list of countries that are facing bankruptcy, maybe Malaysians will wake up and do the right thing. Of course, by then it will be too late because, once a country is bankrupt, changing the government can no longer save the country. But at least I will have the pleasure of screaming, "I told you so", assuming I am still around by then.
|
| Cure the cause, not the symptoms Posted: 14 Nov 2011 08:40 PM PST Therefore, reforms will need to be achieved outside the electoral process. It will have to be achieved through civil society action. Did India or South Africa achieve change through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did Europe 200 years ago achieve reforms through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did America achieve reforms in the mid-1900s through the electoral process or through civil society action? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Sometimes, or maybe most times, it is quite difficult to have an 'intellectual discussion' with Malaysia Today's readers. But then this would only be if you were to analyse the dozen or so comments in the comments section. Out of a readership running into the hundreds of thousands this represents less than 1% of the total. Nevertheless, this gives an impression that this reflects the 'general opinion' whereas less than 1% hardly represents the majority view. But is this not so for other things as well? A few Muslims scream about Islam being under attack and a handful of Malays wearing the PERKASA T-shirts shout about the Chinese robbing the Malays of their birthright. And people take this as the general view of Muslims or Malays whereas 99% of the Malays-Muslims remain silent and say nothing because they do not share these views and feel that engaging the 1% is foolhardy seeing that nothing you say is going to do any good anyway. I know some people lament as to why the silent majority amongst the Malays-Muslims remain silent. Is this because they support or agree with what this 1% say? Well, would you want to argue with a fool? Is it not a fool who argues with a fool? So why bother to engage them? Just let them scream and make fools of themselves and hopefully one day they will get tired and shut up. There are white supremacists in Britain and Australia, Ku Klux Klan in the US, Nazis in Germany, etc. And they take to the streets and demonstrate and scream. But do these 1,000 screaming whites represent the 72 million population of Britain? Why are the other 72 million British citizens keeping quiet? Well, the 72 million other British think that the 1,000 screaming whites are nut cases. And why do you want to argue with nut cases? Anyway, I am digressing. Let us get back to the issue of the comments in the comments section of Malaysia Today that I was talking about. As I said, this represents a mere fraction of the total readership. I can just ignore them if I want to. But I am going to address them and make a general reply to these comments. I am not suggesting that these comments are foolish. Some, in fact, are of substance and certainly add value to the matter being discussed. But many are talking about curing the symptoms rather than the cause of the disease. And this is what I want to talk about today. Why do you keep repeating what we already know? Do you think that repeating, again and again, that the government is corrupt and abuses its power, the government practices racism and discrimination, the government practices selective prosecution and manipulates the judicial system, etc., all our problems are going to be solved? We know all that. No need to tell us what we already know. Tell us what to do about it. Sure, I know you will now tell me that we need to kick out the government, change the government, and so on. Okay, that is what we need to do. But how are we going to do that? And will kicking out the government or changing the government solve the problem? Many countries have done this but that did not solve the problem. What makes you think we can do what other more organised countries can't seem to do? And has not more than 200 years of history in changing governments all over the world not taught us anything? Most of you are focusing on and talking about the symptoms of the problem. All the comments you post are about the signs of the disease. And all your suggestions are about trying to cure these symptoms rather than getting to the root of the problem, the cause of the disease. For example, when we talk about the nine United Nations' Treaties and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) you brush that off and say that that is not important. What is important is that we must first change the government. But that is just it. These issues are important. And they are important because if they are not addressed then we will never be able to change the government. It is like saying that when I strike a lottery and become rich I am going to do this, that and the other. But you never go out and buy a lottery -- which means you are never going to win a lottery and become rich. So what's all this talk of when I strike a lottery and become rich I am going to do this, that and the other? It is merely idle talk and daydreaming. We need the correct environment and platform to see change. And I mean, of course, change through the electoral process or constitutional means. Of course, if you want to bypass the democratic process and effect change through non-constitutional means, such as an armed revolution, then that is another matter altogether. But how do we see this happen if we do not have free, clean and fair elections? We have discussed this before. Barisan Nasional will be able to hold on to power even if they win less than 50% of the votes. We need an independent judiciary if we want to file election petitions to thwart election fraud. We need an uncorrupted Police Force, Anti-Corruption Commission, Human Rights Commission, AG Chambers, Election Commission, etc., if we want them to uphold free, clean and fair elections. As long as all these agencies work for Barisan Nasional and not for the people, then free, clean and fair elections would be impossible. So, no, the cure to all our problems is not to change the government. The cure to all our problems is reforms. And we need to press for reforms because without reforms Barisan Nasional will be able to hold on to power long after all of us have gone to our graves. So, my question would be: can we see reforms by changing the government? I would say 'no' because we will never be able to change the government without reforms. Barisan Nasional will make sure of that. Therefore, reforms will need to be achieved outside the electoral process. It will have to be achieved through civil society action. Did India or South Africa achieve change through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did Europe 200 years ago achieve reforms through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did America achieve reforms in the mid-1900s through the electoral process or through civil society action? Learn from history, my friend. Hitler came to power through the electoral process. And tens of millions of people died because of that. Sometimes, elections without reforms will bring more harm than good. So, can we stop talking about what's wrong with Malaysia? We all know what's wrong with Malaysia. You do not need to remind us about what's wrong with Malaysia. I can tell you more than you can tell me about what's wrong with Malaysia. We need to now start discussing what to do about it. And stop telling me that we need to change the government to see changes in Malaysia. I want to know how to change the government under the present electoral system that we have in Malaysia and whether by changing the government (if that is even possible in the first place) we will be guaranteed of seeing change or will it merely be, as more than 200 years of history has proven, just putting old wine into a new bottle? Maybe it is time to start thinking outside the box. Can we trust politicians to bring about these changes that we are clamouring for? Are, maybe, politicians too self-serving or selfish and are out for personal gain? Are they really working for the people or working for themselves? If the politicians were seriously interested in our welfare rather than serving their own interests then they would put aside their personal and party interests for the greater good of the people. But they are not doing this. There are three parties in Pakatan Rakyat (and, of course, 14 in Barisan Nasional). Then we have PRM, PSM, SNAP, SAPP, KITA, PCM, PERSB, BERJASA, PASOK, SETIA, AKIM, STAR, HRP, and the UBF 'coalition' (did I miss out anyone?). Why can't Pakatan Rakyat talk to the 'non-aligned' parties? Maybe I should ask: why can't the three Pakatan Rakyat parties resolve all their inter- and intra-party issues (which should come first)? Yes, many who voted opposition back in 2008 are beginning to question whether they still want to vote opposition this time around. We want to see ABU. But many are now asking whether ABU is good enough. They feel that it has to be more than just ABU. It should no longer just be about what we don't want. It has to be about what we want. If the political parties prove they are incapable of bringing about change then maybe we should forget about political parties (and therefore about seeing change through the electoral process -- which without reforms is not going to see a change of government anyway). Maybe it requires a different form of action to bring about change. And what alternative form of action do you think this will require? That is what we may need to talk about now. |
| Posted: 13 Nov 2011 08:58 PM PST
The 10th of December 2011 will be Human Rights Day (SEE HERE). That day will mark the 63rd Anniversary of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) that was signed back in 10th December 1948. Today, I would like to talk about this issue. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Do you know, out of these nine United Nations' treaties (above), Malaysia has signed only two of them: (5) The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) and (7) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Malaysia has to date not signed the other seven, which are also very crucial if we want to see our civil liberties protected. It is apparent that the current government does not want to sign the other seven treaties. And one more thing that the Malaysian Government does not seem to honour is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) No doubt, while the nine treaties are legally enforceable (which is why Malaysia does not want to sign them), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding but nevertheless is considered a moral obligation. The matter is explained in this article, Human rights: what's stopping Malaysia? (READ MORE HERE) I suppose it is pointless to talk to Barisan Nasional about this issue. After all, Barisan Nasional (and the Alliance Party before that) has been in power for more than 54 years and if they had wanted to do it then they would have already done it by now. What I would like to do instead is to ask Pakatan Rakyat about its stand on this issue. What is Pakatan Rakyat's stand? Will it sign the balance seven of these treaties if it were to come into power? Another question would be regarding The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Will Pakatan Rakyat honour this Declaration as well? Now, we need to know before the next general election and BEFORE we decide who to vote for, is Pakatan Rakyat going to sign the balance of these seven treaties and is it also going to honour The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If not, then why should we vote for Pakatan Rakyat? What difference would Pakatan Rakyat be from Barisan Nasional? We need to get this assurance from Anwar Ibrahim -- the Opposition Leader in Parliament and who Pakatan Rakyat has said will be the Prime Minister if Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government. We do not want to hear Anwar Ibrahim's personal opinion, like what he said about the Hudud matter. His personal opinion carries no weight in the scheme of things. We want to hear from him as the Opposition Leader and the Prime Minister-in-waiting for Pakatan Rakyat. This is very crucial. And we should not give Pakatan Rakyat our vote if they can't give us a guarantee that they will sign all nine of these treaties as well as honour The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And if they are not prepared to give us this guarantee, we want to know why. And we want to know why, now, before we go to the polls to vote the next government into power. If you were to read the 30 Articles in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) you will know why I am asking this and why I say this matter is very crucial. And if I need to go through each Article one-by-one to explain to you in detail, then maybe, as MCA said, you do not deserve to vote. |
| Philosophy as taught by Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 11 Nov 2011 01:54 AM PST Unless the Malays unite they are going to be reduced to a minority, said the one-time Prime Minister of Malaysia. The Indians are united into seven political parties. The Chinese are united into six political parties. But the Malays are divided into three political parties. And this is not good for the future of the Malays. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin 1. We should not allow political freedom for students. Political freedom will threaten peace and unity, said the VC of UiTM. The most peaceful countries in the world are those that do not allow political freedom. Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_6428.html
|
| The meaning and role of civil society (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 09 Nov 2011 08:06 PM PST My hope is that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) can bring awareness to the people that back in the 1800s the Europeans too thought that just by kicking out the crown and/or church and replacing it with a new government all their problems would be solved. This proved to be a fallacy. By the 1900s, they discovered that life could be as bad, or worse, under a democratically elected government. And this is the mistake we must avoid. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Joceline Tan's article in The Star today (READ HERE) gives an impression that most Malaysians -- even educated Malaysians like Joceline Tan -- still do not grasp the meaning of civil society and the third estate (or third force if you wish). I already wrote about the third estate earlier (READ HERE). Maybe today I should explain the meaning and role of civil society. Until the end of the American Revolution in 1781, and the signing of the Treaty of Paris between the British and the Americans in 1783, two groups governed the world -- the crown and/or the church. For the first time in thousands of years, the people successfully kicked out the crown and ruled themselves. And, to ensure that the church did not merely fill the vacuum created by the crown, the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution modelled America along the lines of a Secular State cum Republic. Many Frenchmen fought on the side of the Americans during the five-year American Revolution so invariably, when they went back to France, they sparked the fires of a revolution. This eventually saw the Tsunami of civil society action that resulted in the French Revolution six years later in 1789. Over 50 years, Europe was swept by a revolution Tsunami. England (there were riots in Manchester and London), Spain, Portugal, France (that saw a second revolution after the Napoleonic Wars), the Papal States (Italy did not exist yet), The Hapsburg Empire (there was no German Republic yet), the Russian Empire, etc., all saw the people (civil society movements) rise up to overthrow the crown and the church and rule themselves through elections and an elected government. Those that still retained the monarchy reduced it to a Constitutional Monarchy. It must be noted that elections were either not held or only the nobles and clergy could vote in places where elections were held. Women and the common folks (workers, farmers, etc.) were not allowed to vote. Only the rich and the landowners could vote. So elections were basically very controlled affairs and mere thousands of the privileged class decided who got to rule over the millions of subjects. By the mid-1800s, changes began to emerge and power shifted into the hands of the people. The powers of the church were reduced. Most of the land was owned by the church and the nobles -- while the people became slave labour on the land they worked. The people did not own the land but they had to pay taxes on the land they worked while the rich landowners (the church and the nobles) were exempted from paying tax. In short, it was slavery without it being called slavery. The role of civil society (a concept that emerged in the 1800s) was one factor that brought about changes in 19th century Europe. Poverty was another. Europe saw a population explosion in the 1800s mainly because for about 100 years there were no real wars as such (they called this the period of 100 years peace). So less people died. The 1800s was also the era when research improved the health system so less people died from diseases as well. Food production did not improve. Many farmers faced famine so they had to abandon the fields and migrate to the cities to work in the factories that were mushrooming because of the Industrial Revolution. However, machinery replaced manpower so there was not much work for the migrating farmers. That was why in many cities (Manchester included) the people burned down the factories and destroyed the machinery that was denying them work and hence keeping them in poverty. Basically, the Industrial Revolution brought prosperity to the capitalists but not to the common folks. They may have seen the beginning of political change but this did not mean there was any improvement to their economic wellbeing. They merely exchanged a life of poverty as farmers to poverty as factory workers. And that was why socialism became popular. The people realised that mere political change (from a monarchy to a democracy where governments are elected into office) is not enough. The oppression and exploitation of the workers also needs to be addressed. Today, Communism is a dirty word. But then we are looking at it from today's standards where the workers are guaranteed a minimum wage (except in Malaysia), health care, education, housing, can form unions, etc. But in the days of the so-called Industrial Revolution when the workers were treated no better than serfs or slaves, Communism was the only guarantee for the much oppressed and exploited workers (and farmers) who paid taxes but were denied the right to vote. Maybe you can argue that that was in the 1800s, 200 years ago, and today there is no longer any need for civil society as conditions have much improved since 200 years ago. Maybe that would be true in some aspects. But the oppression and exploitation continues. The only thing is the oppression and exploitation today may be different from that of 200 years ago. Nevertheless, the ruling elite still oppresses and exploits the ruled and the capitalists still call the shots, as they did 200 years ago. So there is still a need for civil society. Civil society still has a role to play. And as long as the people still understand that they are the third estate (or third force if you would like to call it that) then the rulers will be conscious of the needs of the ruled. In the past, the two ruling cliques were the crown and the church. Today, those two cliques are the ruling party and the opposition. And since the 1800s it has been proven that by just removing one ruling clique and replacing it with another does not always work. As the Americans said in the 1700s: it is merely removing one dictator 10,000 miles away with 10,000 dictators one mile away. My hope is that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) can bring awareness to the people that back in the 1800s the Europeans too thought that just by kicking out the crown and/or church and replacing it with a new government all their problems would be solved. This proved to be a fallacy. By the 1900s, they discovered that life could be as bad, or worse, under a democratically elected government. And this is the mistake we must avoid. I know that some readers are now going to comment: why are we talking about something that happened 200 years ago in some distant place called Europe? Well, those who are ignorant about history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. And if Hitler had learned from Napoleon's mistake, then, today, I would be writing this piece in German instead of English.
Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post.html
|
| How con artists work (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 07 Nov 2011 06:14 PM PST And this is why the opposition is not yet ready to form the federal government. They are still too immature and do not respect freedom of choice and freedom of expression. The Seksualiti Merdeka issue is a good enough yardstick to demonstrate how intolerant the opposition is towards freedom of choice and freedom of expression. Can we trust the opposition as the next government? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
The Mufti of Perak, Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria, has spoken out on the evil and sin of homosexuality. Harussani's statement is supported by the Catholic Archdiocesan Pastoral Institute director, Reverend Dr Clarence Devadass. So who says Islam and Catholicism cannot come to an agreement? It is good that the Muslims and Catholics are united in their opposition to evil and sin. However, to the Muslims and Christians, there is only one type of evil and sin: sex. Everything else is not an evil or sin. This gives an impression that Islam and Catholicism are only concerned about sex. In fact, they appear paranoid about sex, as if sex is everything and nothing else matters other than sex. Maybe that is why the history of Islam and Catholicism is a history of discrimination, persecution, murder, ethnic cleansing, injustice, corruption, and whatnot. Whenever the Catholics are in power they oppress the minority and whenever the Muslims are in power they do the same. And that is why most countries choose secularism over a theocracy. They have seen how bad things can be in the hands of the clerics. This obsession with sex is mind-boggling. And why oppose only this one so-called evil or sin: sex? What about all the other evils? Why do these Mufti and church leaders maintain a deafening silence on issues of corruption, abuse of power, wastage of public funds, election fraud, discrimination, selective prosecution, etc? There is only one enemy: sex. There is only one evil: sex. There is only one sin: sex. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom is everyone's concern. They want to know and they want to control what you do. What the politicians are doing to the country is not important. Hey, get this through your thick heads: 28 million Malaysians are being sodomised by the government every single day of their lives. This, you are not concerned about. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is the only thing you worry about. As I said, never trust so-called religious people and politicians. They are all con artists. Take the story below by Malaysia Chronicle. Everyone is up in arms about the lies from TV3. TV3 twisted the story and made it look like Seksualiti Merdeka is a free sex party. We can see people foaming at the mouth because of this distortion. Now, I remember when TV3 was said to be telling the truth. TV3 never lies. This was earlier this year when TV3 ran my interview. Utusan Malaysia reported that TV3 said I had retracted my allegation against Rosmah Mansor. Actually I did not. And it was Utusan Malaysia that said I did. Most people who had not even seen my TV3 interview and based the story on what Utusan Malaysia said started going round the country telling everyone that I had been bought over by Umno. They had not even seen the TV3 interview. But because Utusan Malaysia reported that this was what TV3 said, that was good enough for them. Even the most corrupted Health Minister in Malaysian history, Chua Jui Meng, told everyone I had been bought. Those in the medical industry have nothing but horror stories to tell about Chua Jui Meng during the time he was the Minister. Imagine him passing judgment on me. It's like asking Paris Hilton to talk about the evil of sex before marriage. Malaysia Chronicle should instead talk about the problems between the Chinese in DAP and the Chinese in PKR. They should tell the readers about the serious conflict in Johor, Chua Jui Meng's state, where PKR has threatened to sabotage DAP with three-corner fights if DAP does not give PKR the seats they want. DAP is facing a hard time in trying to pacify PKR. Chua Jui Meng needs to prove himself so he wants to make sure that PKR wins as many seats as possible in Johor. But they can't do this unless they grab all the winnable seats. And that would mean DAP would have to be given the non-winnable seats. Yes, these types of stories Malaysia Chronicle does not want to run. Instead, the stories they run is about TV3 being a liar -- unless it is a TV3 story about Raja Petra Kamarudin. Only then is TV3 not lying. Other times, TV3 is a great liar. Apalah! The opposition-controlled media is no better than the government-controlled media. And when Malaysia Today reports both sides of the story and allows opposing views they get angry. They want Malaysia Today to run only pro-opposition news and articles. And this is why the opposition is not yet ready to form the federal government. They are still too immature and do not respect freedom of choice and freedom of expression. The Seksualiti Merdeka issue is a good enough yardstick to demonstrate how intolerant the opposition is towards freedom of choice and freedom of expression. Can we trust the opposition as the next government? ************************************ Mufti: Don't ignore issues of morality (New Straits Times) - Perak mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria said homosexuality is against not only Islam, but also other religions such as Christianity and Buddhism. "Human rights are human rights, but the morality issues cannot be ignored," he said. "Allah has given humans sexual desire to procreate and we are bound by rules and regulations, just like we are given hands and legs to do good both to ourselves and mankind," he told the New Straits Times yesterday. Harussani said he believed that natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes now happening around the world "are trials by God". He was commenting on the annual sexuality rights festival, Seksualiti Merdeka. The festival, which celebrates the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, has been held since 2008. This year's event, themed "Queer Without Fear", was scheduled to be held from Nov 9 to 13. However, it was cancelled after police issued an outright ban on Thursday. Many groups, individuals and religious organisations had voiced their opposition to the event, with two police reports lodged in the city against the organisers. The public had also been advised not to attend any activity or event relating to the event to avoid arrest. Other religious leaders stand united in their stance that homosexual acts are violations against divine and natural law. Catholic Archdiocesan Pastoral Institute director Reverend Dr Clarence Devadass said the Catholic Church teaches that such sexual acts are wrong. Reverend Philip Tan, provincial head of the Congregation of the Disciples of the Lord, Malaysia, echoed similar views. "Of course, our Catholic teaching does not condone such homosexual practices, but we still extend our pastoral care to this community. "We accept them and there are priests and nuns who counsel them on an individual basis when they choose to confide." ************************************ Spinning with TV Tiga: A Najib Razak and team production (Malaysia Chronicle) - While I do not usually watch TV3, and cannot remember the last time I switched to it, I did make a point to watch on Monday night. I was curious how they would handle, or spin rather, Marina Mahathir's support of Ambiga Sreenevasan and her telling off of a TV3 reporter. Marina had been completely blocked out of the report. Based on TV3's version, she was never there. Ambiga however was prominently featured being interviewed by police who visited the Tenaganita office in Jalan Gasing. TV3 then showed Ambiga, visibly angry, daring TV3 to broadcast her comments and threatening to sue them for portraying Seksualiti Merdeka as a free sex party. TV3 broadcast her comments. Now, before you start congratulating TV3 for broadcasting both sides of the story, note that Ambiga was talking in English. The viewers who watch TV3's 8pm news broadcast are predominantly Malay. What they would have seen is Ambiga looking angry, waving her arms about and speaking in a language they can't really understand. Clever TV3, the nation's only tongue-in-cheek propagandist. Something needs to be done about the police And what on earth were the police doing there? Perhaps they have been misled by Khalid Abu Bakar, the Deputy IGP, formerly Selangor CPO and superior officer to Kugan's tormentors. Also under whose careless watch the shooting death of Aminulrasyid and the horrific Banting murders occurred. Khalid had appeared on NTV7 and made the remarkable declaration that homosexuality was against Malaysian law. It is, of course, an incorrect statement. There is no such law. And so it goes on, this shameful persecution of minority communities, in this case the LGBT community. They are forced to live in the shadows, in fear, even though they are Malaysian citizens with constitutionally guaranteed protections. One wonders how long Prime Minister Najib Razak and his government can keep this up. Atheists conference, anyone?
Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_08.html
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2011 06:25 PM PST So, do you think these people are really that godly or pious? They think only of themselves. They don't care about others. And these people are the people who condemn gays because they imagine themselves as saints. Yet they don't care whether their car is obstructing other cars when they go to the church or mosque. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
A number of Christians and Muslims are angry with me. They are angry for various reasons and one of the reasons is the 'Seksualiti Merdeka' issue. I suppose my article 'Way to go!' riled them up a bit. These religionists want to know whether I support homosexuality. Why must it always be about 'if you are not with me then you are against me'? That is the way of President Bush. Either you are with the US or you are against the US. And if you are not with the US then they have every right to attack your country and cause millions to suffer. This 'either you are with me or you are against me' is the root cause of this world's ills. Either you support Ketuanan Melayu or else you are an enemy of the Malays. Either you support Hudud or else you are an enemy of Islam. Either you support the protest against 'Seksualiti Merdeka' or else you are a gay lover (or maybe even gay yourself). So, what else? Either I support a female prime minister of Malaysia or else I am a male chauvinist? Either I support a Jewish prime minister of Malaysia or else I am anti-Semitic? Either I support the building of more churches or else I am anti-Christian? Either I support the building of more temples or else I am anti-Hindu? Either I support Bahasa Malaysia or else I am anti-Malay? Either I support polygamy or else I am insulting Prophet Muhammad? Either I support the keeping of slaves or else I am anti-Quran? Either I support sex with female slaves or else I am anti-Hadith? What happened to live and let live? And why must everyone live according to your value system? The trouble with both Christians and Muslims is: 1) they always think they are right and everyone else is wrong; 2) they always think they are pious and take on a righteous attitude; 3) they refuse to live and let live and everyone must live according to their standards; 4) they do not tolerate differences of opinion and regard those who disagree with them as the enemies of Christianity/Islam. How can both be right? Christians say they are going to heaven and the rest are going to hell. Muslims also say they are going to heaven and the rest are going to hell? How can both black and white be the same colour? One definitely must be right and the other wrong. And what makes you so sure that you are right and all the rest are wrong? What if I believe otherwise? And why can't I believe otherwise? You Christians are so sure that you are right and everyone else (especially gays) is a sinner bound for hell. Yeah, sure, it says so in the Bible. But which Bible? What makes you think I believe in your Bible? To start off with, what makes you think I even consider you a follower of Christ? What if I consider you a deviant? What if I consider the Nestorian (Persian) or Coptic (Egyptian) as the true Christian? What if I consider you Paulists who are practicing Paulism, which later changed its name to Christianity? Just because the Catholics are the majority does not mean I must regard them as true Christians. It is up to me which sect I want to consider true Christians. That is my right. That is not for you to tell me. If the Catholics had not killed so many non-Catholics over almost 1,000 years then probably the Nestorian or Coptic would be the majority today. If people had not been forced to become Catholics at the point of a sword, would there be so many Catholics around today? So might does not make it right. Yeah, sure, I know, you don't agree with me. You dispute what I say. But then that is your right. I also do not agree with you, which is also my right. So you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe. And I believe that we should live and let live. You live your life and let others live their lives as long as they do not infringe into your space or violate your rights. It is the same with the Muslims, the twin brothers of the Catholics. They too have certain beliefs and they demand that everyone else comply with their beliefs. What if I don't believe what you believe? What if I believe that you are following the Abbasid version of Islam, which is a deviation from the Umayyad version of Islam? You might disagree but then that is your prerogative. You believe what you want and let me believe what I want. In Malaysia, Shias are considered deviants and will suffer arrest. In Iran, Malaysian Muslims are considered deviants. So who is right? Who is the real deviant? Of course, Malaysian Muslims will say that they are right and all the rest are wrong. How do you know? Where is the proof? So you see, whether it is Christians or Muslims, they all live in this illusion that they are right and all the rest are wrong. But they really don't know. They have no evidence. They only have the word of the priest, imam or ustaz that this is so. And based on what they believe is right and wrong, they will moralise and pass judgement on others. So, the religionists are up in arms against what they perceive as the immoral lifestyle of gays. And if we were to tell them to leave the gays alone and allow them whatever lifestyle they want to lead without any hassle from self-righteous moralists, they accuse us of being bad Christians/Muslims. Gays are immoral or wrong only because you think you are so moral and right. Morality and right, after all, is relative. Yes, I am a moral relativist. So what? So sue me. Some say it was immoral for Prophet Muhammad to marry an underage girl. And certainly Muslims will foam at the mouth if people start labelling Prophet Muhammad as a paedophile (yes, I have read some anti-Islam websites that say this). But then, more than 1,000 years ago, marrying off a five-year old boy to a three-year old girl was politically correct, even in Europe, as long as the marriage is not consummated until the children reach the age of puberty. It was widely practised as a means to seal political alliances between powerful families and to end feuds (with marriage ties). In fact, they even married off 13-year old girls to 50-year old men. That was quite normal. Sure, we need to fight against crime, sin, immorality, etc. But how many of you have NOT sinned (paid a bribe, accepted a bribe, cheated on your income tax, stolen a paper clip from the office, falsely declared on a form, lied to a friend, lied to your boss, etc.)? You speak as if you are so saintly. My car once got stuck in the Assunta Hospital car park because inconsiderate church-goers had parked indiscriminately. My car also always used to get stuck in the Bangsar mosque car park because inconsiderate mosque-goers park indiscriminately, as they always do. So, do you think these people are really that godly or pious? They think only of themselves. They don't care about others. And these people are the people who condemn gays because they imagine themselves as saints. Yet they don't care whether their car is obstructing other cars when they go to the church or mosque. Podah! |
| Why Umno Malays are NOT Muslims Posted: 05 Nov 2011 04:43 PM PDT This great annual convention of faith demonstrates the concept of equality of mankind, the most profound message of Islam, which allows no superiority on the basis of race, gender or social status. The only preference in the eyes of God is piety as stated in the Quran: "The best amongst you in the eyes of God is most righteous." NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Hajj: Equality before God Ahmad Al-Akhras, Harakah Daily Every year, Muslims from all over the world take part in the largest gathering on Earth, the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Makkah. The Hajj is a religious obligation that every Muslim must fulfill, if financially and physically able, at least once in his or her lifetime.
|
| The Third Estate (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 04 Nov 2011 05:55 PM PDT
What do you know about the Third Estate? Basically, the Third Estate is the third of the traditional social classes after the clergy and nobility -- meaning the common people or rakyat. Whether you want to call this group of people the Third Estate (like 200 years ago) or the Third Force is immaterial. The important thing is this is the force that should tell the rulers/government what it wants and not the other way around. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
The French Revolution began in 1789 with the convocation of the Estates-General in May. The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate proclaiming the Tennis Court Oath in June, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and an epic march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. The next few years were dominated by tensions between various liberal assemblies and a right-wing monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms. A republic was proclaimed in September 1792 and King Louis XVI was executed the next year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution) When Louis XVI summoned the Estates General in 1788, he faced a difficult and insurmountable problem: the Third Estate. The last time the Estates General had been called was in 1614; the Estates General was set up in such a way that each Estate got the same number of members. In effect, this meant that the First and Second Estates, comprised almost unanimously of the nobility, could always outvote the Third Estate. Since 1614, the economic power of the Third Estate had increased dramatically; in 1788, the popular call was to double the number of representatives from the Third Estate so that they'd have equal voting power in comparison with the other two estates. Louis initially declined to increase the number, but he finally gave in the waning days of 1788. The question of "doubling the Third Estate" was preventing the solution of the deepening financial crisis; with Louis's compromise, the Estates General met in May of 1789. Louis, however, had vacillated on the question for too long. He had lost any support he had among the wealthy members of the Third Estate -- in addition, the aristocracy had tried to solve the problem in its own way. The Parlemen of Paris conceded the doubling question in September, but then declared that all voting would be done by individual Estates -- that is, each Estate would get one vote. That meant that the Third Estate could be outvoted two to one every time. Angry at the king and sickened by the efforts of the aristocracy to control the Assembly of the Estates General, all the members of the Third Estate walked out en masse when the Assembly met in Versailles. They were joined by some clergy, members of the First Estate, and they then declared themselves the National Assembly and the only legitimate legislative body of the country on June 17, 1789. They were fired by ideas ultimately derived from Rousseau, ideas about social contract and rights, and no person more eloquently defined the spirit of the National Assembly than the clergyman Abbé Emmanuel Sieyès, who declared that the Third Estate was everything, had been treated as nothing, and wanted only to be something. The rallying point was Rousseau's idea that the members of a nation are the nation itself; this is what legitimated the claims of the new National Assembly. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080307060521AArTCk8)
Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_05.html
|
The Hajj is a reminder of the Grand Assembly on the Day of Judgment when people will stand equal before God waiting for their final destiny, and as the Prophet Muhammad said, "God does not judge according to your bodies and appearances, but he scans your hearts and looks into your deeds."| 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 | |
